Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Group C
FOIA/PA NO: 2015-0071
RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN PART
The following types of information are being withheld:
Ex. 1 :[Records properly classified pursuant to Executive Order 13526Ex. 2:E] Records regarding personnel rules and/or human capital administrationEx. 3 :E-- Information about the design, manufacture, or utilization of nuclear weapons
DInformation about the protection or security of reactors and nuclear materialsElContractor proposals not incorporated into a final contract with the NRCElOther
Ex. 4:[-W Proprietary information provided by a submitter to the NRC--lOther
Ex. 5:u j~raft documents or other pre-decisional deliberative documents (D.P. Privilege)stlRecords prepared by counsel in anticipation of litigation (A.W.P. Privilege)JiPrivileged communications between counsel and a client (A.C. Privilege)MOther
Ex. 6:]- Agency employee PII, including SSN, contact information, birthdates, etc.-Third party PII, including names, phone numbers, or other personal information
Ex. 7(A):lCopies of ongoing investigation case files, exhibits, notes, ROI's, etc.[--Records that reference or are related to a separate ongoing investigation(s)
Ex. 7(C): ESpecial Agent or other law enforcement PlI[-'PII of third parties referenced in records compiled for law enforcement purposes
Ex. 7(D):[-- Witnesses' and Allegers' PHI in law enforcement records--1 Confidential Informant or law enforcement information provided by other entity
Ex. 7(E): -Law Enforcement Technique/Procedure used for criminal investigations---Technique or procedure used for security or prevention of criminal activity
Ex. 7(F): E- Information that could aid a terrorist or compromise security
Other/Comments: Portions of records that do not "mention, refer to, or are related to" the DPO areconsidered nonresponsive.
From:Sent:To:Cc:Subject:Attachments:
Importance:
Oesterle, EricMonday, December 01, 2014 7:16 AMUhle, Jennifer; Evans, Michele; Wilson, GeorgeSebrosky, Joseph; Orf, Tracy, Rihm, RogerRE: Question on DCPP for EPW hearingANTICIPATED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERSDCPP_1.docx; NRR-Diablo Canyon Seismic
Studies-updated2014_1.docx
High
Jennifer,
Just getting in this morning (Monday 12/1) and seeing your email. I am reviewing the responses andaddressing your comments this morning. See also responses below.
The updated responses are included as attachments.,
FricR. O-4teie'Acting Branch ChiefNRR/DORL/LPL4-1301-4151014
From: Uhle, JenniferSent: Friday, November 28, 2014 6:01 PMTo: Evans, Michele; Wilson, GeorgeCc: Oesterte, Eric; Sebrosky, JosephSubject: Question on DCPP for EPW hearing
Non Responsive
I
Roger Rihm has the electronic version and you can email him the change. We need it first thing tomorrow. I amemailing you guys to verify you agree. Please cc me.
Thanks,
Jennifer
2
4AIiSLUO ýbd UON
NOANVO 018 VIO
S113MSNV ONV SNOI1s~lo Ua.lVdIOI1NV
zO
.AMSLIOdSýý LON
SI Diablo Canyon Seismic Studios
Non Responsive
Non Responsive
Non Responsive
(b)(5
Non Responsive
ŽAIsuodsG8 UON
aA'AiSIJdsaZ U()N
Non ResponsivE
Non Responslsvf
Non Responsive
Non Responsive
-10)(
From: Niedzielski-Eichner, PhillipSent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 10:09 PMTo: Dapas, Marc; Williamson, EdwardCc Johnson, Michael; Doane, Margaret; Itzkowitz, Marvin; Kennedy, Kriss; Dacus, Eugene;
Uhle, Jennifer, Holian, BrianSubject: RE: Draft Answer to SONGS Question on Whether an LA Should Have Been Required
I forwarded the info to the Chairman earlier this evening. Best. Phil
From: Dapas, MarcSent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 7:41 PMTo: Niedzlelskl-Eichner, Phillip; Williamson, EdwardCc: Johnson, Michael; Doane, Margaret; Itzkowitz, Marvin; Kennedy, Kriss; Dacus, Eugene; Uhle, Jennifer; Holian, BrianSubject: RE: Draft Answer to SONGS Question on Whether an LA Should Have Been Required
(b)5),(b)(6)Non Responsive
From: Dapas, MarcSent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 6:38 PMTo: Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip; Williamson, EdwardCc: Johnson, Michael; Doane, Margaret; Itzkowitz, Marvin; Kennedy, Kriss; Dacus, Eugene; Uhle, Jennifer; Holian, BrianSubject: RE: Draft Answer to SONGS Question on Whether an LA Should Have Been Required
I ~(bl(,5)I
I
Non Responsive
From: Niedzielski-Eichner, PhillipSent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 5:46 PMTo: Dapas, Marc; Williamson, EdwardCc: Johnson, Michael; Doane, Margaret; Itzkowitz, Marvin; Kennedy, Kriss; Dacus, Eugene; Uhle, Jennifer; Holian, BrianSubject: RE: Draft Answer to SONGS Question on Whether an LA Should Have Been Required
0
0
0
S
Non Responsive
Best. Phil
From: Dapas, MarcSent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 6:15 PM
a
To: Williamson, EdwardCc: Johnson, Michael; Doane, Margaret; Itzkowitz, Marvin; Kennedy, Kriss; Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip; Dacus, Eugene;Uhle, Jennifer; Holian, BrianSubject: RE: Draft Answer to SONGS Question on Whether an LA Should Have Been Required
(b)(5)I
3
From:SentTo:
Subject:Attachments:
Rihm, RogerMonday, December 01, 2014 10:49 AMUhle, Jennifer5 one aaaers as discussed
Non Responsive
Non Responsive INRR Diablo Canvon Seism ic. . . . .. . . j . . . . . ....
Studies.docx;INon Resnonsive
| F I
Importance: High
1
ANTICIPATED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
DIABLO CANYON
Non Responsive
(b)(5)
Non Resoonslvce
Non Responsive
Non Responsive
Diablo Canyon Seismic Studies
Non Responsive
kl- 0.--4".
Non Responsive
b)(5)
Non Responsive
Non Responsive
Non Re~sponsive
Non Resc~ons3ive
Non Responsive
Non Responsive
Non Responsive
From: Ross-Lee, MaryJaneSent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 11:04 AMTo: Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric; Walker, WayneCc: Lubinski, John; Flanders, Scott; Kock, Andrea; Lingam, Siva; Pruett, Troy; Manoly, Kamal;
Bowers, Anthony; Wilson, George; Karas, Rebecca; Li, Yong; Evans, Michele; Oesterle,Eric; Uhle, Jennifer
Subject: RE: Chairman request for NRO/RES personnel to meet re: DCPP
Mike, thanks for offing to be sure the seismic guys on the operating reactor side are in the loop on Diablo. Weappreciate it!
Mary Jane Ross-Lee (MJ)Deputy Director, Division of EngineeringOffice of Nuclear Reactor RegulationOWFN 9H1US Nuclear Regulatory Commission2 Office: 301-415-32981 Mobile: l
e-mail ryane.ross-lI nrcxiov
From: Markley, MichaelSent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:04 AMTo: Oesterle, Erdc; Walker, WayneCc: Lubinskl, John; Ross-Lee, MaryJane; Flanders, Scott; Kock, Andrea; Lingam, Siva; Pruett, Troy; Manoly, Kamal;Bowers, Anthony; Wilson, George; Karas, Rebecca; U, Yong; Evans, Michele; Oesterle, Eric; Uhle,.JenniferSubject: Chairman request for NRO/RES personnel to meet re: DCPP
All,
The purpose of this note is to keep you informed that the Chairman has asked to meet with Cliff Munson, JonAke, and Nilesh Choksi on December 1 or 2 regarding Diablo Canyon. It is not apparent what the details ofthis discussion will be, but the Chairman has had a long-standing and ongoing dialogue with these individualsregarding seismic at Diablo Canyon. My suspicion is that this may have some bearing on her preparation forthe upcoming hearings and preparation materials that have been compiled. We will keep you informed of anyissues or questions that may become apparent.
Mike
I
From: Ross-Lee, MaryJaneSent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 4:20 PMTo: Uhle, JenniferSubject: RE: addressing manager's comments on DCPP Op Det
I just did - didn't realize they were both in training. I asked them to come to you.
Mary Jane Ross-Lee (MJ)Deputy Director, Division of EngineeringOffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
QWFN 9H1US Nuclear Regulatory CommissionW Office: 50 15.3298T; MObile:l ,1<)
e-mail riane.ross- ee•.nrc.qov
From: Uhle, JenniferSent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 4:19 PMTo: Ross-Lee, ManryaneSubject: RE: addressing manager's comments on DCPP Op Det
M J, can you get an admin to track them down?.
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Ross-Lee, MarylaneSent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 3:26 PMTo: Li, Yong; Chokshi, NileshCc: Uhle, JenniferSubject: FW: addressing manager's comments on DCPP Op DetImportance: High
Can the 2 of you please go up and see Jennifer?
Mary Jane Ross-Lee (MJ)Deputy Director, Division of EngineeringOffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
OWFN 9H1US Nuclear Regulatory CommissionW Office: 301-415-32989) Mobile:[ .).6
e-mail: marviane ross-lee(,nrc.qov
From: Uhle, JenniferSent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 3:24 PMTo: Ross-Lee, Marylane; Dean, Bill; Holian, Brian
c26S
Cc: Pruett, Troy; Lubinski, JohnSubject: RE: addressing manager's comments on DCPP Op Det
Hi guys I have questions on the second paragraph on page 2. It is not making sense to me. Can we chattoday? J
From: Ross-Lee, MaryJaneSent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 1:16 PMTo: Dean, Bill; Holian, Brian; Uhle, JenniferCc: Pruett, Troy; Lubinskl, JohnSubject: FW: addressing manager's comments on DCPP Op Det
Bill/Jennifer/Brian,
Between NRR and NRO, we collectively addressed all the comments except the one below.
NRC believes that the original wording is better in describing the DDE loads.
The original reads,
'"However, the DDE tends to control the SSCs with natural frequencies only in the lower range."
The comments reads,
"However, the DOE loads are the most severe loads on the SSCs with natural frequencies only in the lowerrange,"
Therefore, it was not changed.
Mary Jane Ross-Lee (MJ)
Deputy Director, Division -of EngineeringOffice of Nuclear Reactor RegulationOWFN 9HIUS Nuclear Regulatory CommissionW Office: 301-415-32980) Mobile:.
e-mail. iriaine:ross-tee nrc.gov
From: Li, YongSent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 12:51 PMTo: Ross-Lee, MaryJaneCc: Lubinski, John; Lupold, Timothy; Manoly, KamalSubject: addressing manager's comments
M J,
We, between NRR and NRO, collectively addressed all the comments from the senior managers except theone below,
NRO believes that the original wording is better in describing the DDE loads.
The original reads,
2
"However, the DDE tends to control the SSCs with natural frequencies only in the lower range."
The comments reads,
"However, the DDE loads are the most severe loads on the SSCs with natural frequencies only in the lowerrange.-
Therefore, it is not changed.
Thanks!
Yong
3
From: Ross-Lee, MaryJaneSent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 7:48 PMTo: Uhie, JenniferCc Ross-Lee, MaryJane; Dean, Bill; Holian, Brian; Pruett, Troy;, Lubinski, John; Chokshi,
Nilesh; Kock, Andrea; Li, YongSubject: RE: addressing manager's comments on DCPP Op Det
Thanks. We will finalize and send to Region 4.
MJ Ross-LeeDeputy Director, Division of Engineering, NRR.Sent via My Workspace for iOS
On Thursday, November 6,2014 at 5:59:14 PM, "Uhle, Jennifer" <Jennifer.UhIefitnrc.gov> wrote:
Based on my discussion with Nilesh, Andrea and Yong, I modified it a bit and hopefully the final is attached. J
From: Ross-Lee, MaryJaneSent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 1:16 PMTo: Dean, Bill; Holian, Brian; Uhle, JenniferCc: Pruett, Troy; Lubinski, JohnSubject: FWV: addressing manager's comments on DCPP Op Det
Bill/Jennifer/Brian,
Between NRR and NRO, we collectively addressed all the comments except the one below.
NRO believes that the original wording is better in describing the DDE loads.
The original reads,.
"However, the DDE tends to control the SSCs with natural frequencies only in the lower range:'
The comments reads.
"However, the DDE loads are the most severe loads on the SSCs with natural frequencies only in the lowerrange."
Therefore, it was not changed.
Mary Jane Ross-Lee (MJ)
Deputy Director, Division of Engineering
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
OWFN 9H1
US Nuclear Regulatory CommissionW Office: 301-415-32980) Mobiler
1
* e-mail: marviane.ross-!ee(nrc.cov
From: LiU, YongSent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 12:51 PMTo: Ross-Lee, MaryJaneCc: Lubinskl, John; Lupold, Timothy; Manoly, KamalSubject: addressing manager's comments
MJ,
We, between NRR and NRO, collectively addressed all the comments from the senior managers except theone below.
NRO believes that the original wording is better in describing the DDE loads.
The original reads,
"However, the DDE tends to control the SSCs with natural frequencies only in the lower range."
The comments reads,
"However, the DDE loads are the most severe loads on the SSCs-with natural frequencies only in the lowerrange."
Therefore, it is not changed.
Thanks!
Yong
2
From: Ross-Lee, MaryJaneSent Friday, November 07, 2014 10:09 AMTo: Pruett, Troy; Holian, Brian; Uhle, Jennifer; Dean, BillCc Lubinski, John; Kock, Andrea; Flanders, ScottSubject: FW: RG IV Diablo Canyon Seismic Operability inspection Report InputAttachments: DCPP-operabilityNRC.docx
After collaboration between NRO and NRR, the attached was transmitted to Region 4 today.
Mary Jane Ross-Lee (MJ)Deputy Director, Division of EngineeringOffice of Nuclear Reactor RegulationOWFN 9H1US Nuclear Regulatory Commission2 Office: 301-415-3298(1) Mobile :1
e-mail: n -lee nrc.,ov
From: Lupold, TimothySent: Friday, November 07, 2014 9:12 AMTo: Walker, Wayne; Alexander, Ryan; Hipschman, ThomasCc. Lubinski, John; Ross-Lee, MaryJane; Wilson, George; Ake, Jon; Manoly, Kamal; Markley, Michael; Karas, Rebecca; Li,Yong; Munson, Clifford; Oesterle, EricSubject: RG IV Diablo Canyon Selsmic Operability Inspection Report Input
Attached is information provided by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Engineering relatingto the Diablo Canyon Seismic Operability Inspection currently being conducted by Region IV. This informationis provided for inclusion into the inspection report as you deem appropriate. This information has been vettedthrough personnel in the Office of New Reactors. Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis,Geoscience and Geotechnical Engineering Branch 1, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. Division ofEngineering, and NRR, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing. If you have any questions, please contact meor Yong Li (301-415-4141).
Timothy R. LupoldChief, Mechanical & Civil Engineering BranchDivision of EngineeringOffice of Nuclear Reactor RegulationTimothy. Lupold~nrc.lov301-415-6448
I
From: Sebrosky, JosephTo: Oesterle, EricSubject: FW: Info and possible action: former senior resident article dated 9/15 appears to raise issues that should be
turned over to the IGDate: Monday, September 22, 2014 7:49:00 AM
FYI - per our discussion, I should have included you on the original. If you look at the
bottom you will see the link to the former SRI's statements.
Joe
From: Case, MichaelSent: Monday, September 22, 2014 6:56 AMTo: OKeefe, Neil; Sebrosky, JosephCc: Markley, Michael; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Balazik, MichaelSubject: RE: info and possible action: former senior resident article dated 9/15 appears to raise issuesthat should be turned over to the IG
Hi Joe. I agree with Neil. Although there are things in there that are not correct, I didn'tsee anything that is worthy of yet another round of examination.
From: OKeefe, NeilSent: Saturday, September 20, 2014 12:45 PMTo: Sebrosky, JosephCc: Markley, Michael; Case, Michael; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Balazik, MichaelSubject: RE: info and possible action: former senior resident article dated 9/15 appears to raise issuesthat should be turned over to the IG
All,
I read Peck's response to the DPO appeal answer, and I did not identify any newinformation.
It contains the same factual errors and misunderstandings that were presented andanswered in his DPO and DPO appeal. It also contains the same kind of over-statementsabout what the regulations require and misstatements about what the NRC and licenseedid, and why. I interpret this to mean that he has dismissed the official answers the NRChas provided to his DPO and DPO appeal.
I do not believe there are any statements of impropriety on any individuals, nor do I seeany value to sending to the OIG; however. I always believe that if anyone feels itappropriate to do so, I will support them with the same energy I supported Peck's DPO.Knowing Michael, I interpret his writing as unusually patient and restrained with respect tohis statements about the NRC.
Neil O'KeefeChief, Branch BDRP, RIV(817) 200-11 ()
From: Sebrosky, JosephSent: Friday, September 19, 2014 11:44 AMTo: Markley, Michael; OKeefe, Neil; Case, MichaelCc: Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Balazik, MichaelSubject: info and possible action: former senior resident article dated 9/15 appears to raise issues thatshould be turned over to the IG
To all,
The link below is to an article written by Michael Peck on 9/15/14. You can get to thearticle by following the link in the "NRC in the news today" summary of a San Luis Obisponew times piece. Anyway the article from the former senior resident inspector has veryunflattering things to say about Region IV, me, and the DPO panel. Taking a step back itwould appear to me that the whole thing needs to be turned over to the IG.
Let me know if I am missing something
Link to article in San Luis Obispo new times
http:l/www.newfimesslo.com/news/1 1442/solid-ground-two-reports-claim-diablo-canyon-is-safe-from-earthauakes/
Bottom of article has a link to the former senior resident inspector response to the releaseof the DPO information
httoH/issuu.com/ntmgldocs/summary of diablo canyon doo - seD/O
From; Hiland. PatrickTo: Sebrnfo. JosephSubject: RE: DPO panel membersOate: Monday, September 22, 2014 7:22:14 AM
thx
From: Sebrosky, JosephSent: Friday, September 19, 2014 6:00 PMTo: Hiland, PatrickSubject: F'W: DPO panel members
Pat,
Page 3 of 164 provides who the DPO submitter wanted on the panel. The signature on thepanel report indicates that it was an SRA from Region II that was on the panel at thesubmitter's request. The name of the individual is Rudy Bernard.
Joe
From: Sebrosky, JosephSent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 9:34 AMTo: Hiland, PatrickCc: Ake, ]on; Li, Yong; Markley, Michael; Lupoldi Timothy; Karas, Rebecca; Ross-Lee, MaryJane;Oesterle, Eric; Wilson, George; Walker, Wayne; OKeefe, Neil; Hipschman, Thomas; Munson, Clifford;Manoly, Kamal; Hill, BrittainSubject: RE: Proposed Questions to PG&E
Pat,
The purpose of this email is to provide you with the reference documents that I discussedwith you this morning that serves as the basis for why I believe it is important tounderstand PG&E's position on whether or not in-structure motions (different dampingvalues and comparisons) have been done. Specifically I referenced information that is inthe DPO. The DPO case file can be found at: MLiA52 ._A4.
The case file is 164 pages long. The most important portion of the case file to me is thelast 5 pages (i.e., 159 - 164) that documents the EDO's appeal decision. The 5 pagedocument provides a concise history of the issue and also includes the followingdiscussion on page 4:
Nevertheless, your questioning attitude and perseverance were key to ensunng that thelicensee and staff fully evaluated the! implications of the Shoreline fault zone. Youcorrectlynoted that the seismic hazard should be evaluated for not only comparison of the groundmotion response spectra, but also the plant"s design and construction to ensurecontinued safe operation.
I understand that the in-structure motions calculations were not part of the basis for theoperability determination that was made in the October 2012 time frame. Nevertheless itwould appear to me that the EDO agrees that they should have been done. Based on the
Non Responsi•ve
oH
Non Responsive
Non Reseonsive,
From: Hill, BrittainSent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 5:32 PMTo: Manoly, Kamal; Munson, CliffordCc: Ake, J1on; U, Yong; Markley, Michael; Lupold, Timothy; Karas, Rebecca; Ross-Lee, Marylane;Hiland, Patrick; Oesterle, Eric; Sebrosky, JosephSubject: Re: Proposed Questions to PG&E
Without the clarification on damping, we end up with the same confusing issues as 2 non
concurrences, a DPO, the 2014 union Conc sci report, and recent petition by FOE. If damping
clarified, stops all this confusion in its tracks and gives clear basis for decisions. This is not a pure
engineering exercise, and what you are portraying as "noise" is ano important consideration ihclearly explaining why or why not we think DCPP is safe to operate. If there still are dissenting views,
i suggest we discuss them at tomorrow's meeting before call.
Britt
Sent from Brittain Hill's PDA
From: Manoly, KamalSent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 04:58 PM Eastern Standard TimeTo: Hill, Brittain; Munson, CliffordCc: Ake, J1on; Li, Yong; Markley, Michael; Lupold, Timothy; Karas, Rebecca; Ross-Lee, Marylane;Hiland, Patrick; Oesterle, Eric; Sebrosky, JosephSubject: RE; Proposed Questions to PG&E
I mentioned RG 1.61 to illustrate a point. I know from my involvement with Diablo since themid-eighties that the plant was licensed to damping values that are different from RG 1.61.i also knew that some components are governed by DDE and others by Hosgri. Fromdoing actual design of components in nuclear plants, designers know that somecomponents may be governed by OBE and others by SSE, Still, the argument aboutdamping should not be relevant to altering the evaluation done by PG&E in 2011 exceptfor the change of ground motion (old shoreline line vs. new shoreline hazard). That is theonly variable of significance. The rest is in the noise level from an engineering standpoint.
Kamal ManolySenior Level Technical Advisor for Structural MechanicsDivision of Engineering
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation301-415-2765
From: Hill, BrittainSent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 4:17 PMTo: Manoly, Kamal; Munson, CliffordCc: Ake, Jon; Li, Yong; Markley, Michael; Lupold, Timothy; Karas, Rebecca; Ross-Lee, MaryJane;Hiland, Patrick; Oesterle, Eric; Sebrosky, JosephSubject: Re: Proposed Questions to PG&E
Please read ch 2,3, and 5 in DCPP SAR to see that Hosgri is not limiting demand - can be either HE or
DDE. PGE also didnt use RG 1.61 damping for all Cat1 SSCs. Please look at SAR for their mix. Unless
they identify appropriate damping etc, we simply cannot state that new info is bounded by existing
lic basis. if new Shoreline exceeds DDE, and DDE is the SSE and limiting GM (NO1 Hosgri!) for some
SSCs, we certainly need PGE to state what damping is appropriate for new info: DDE, HE, RG1.61, or
something else.
Britt
Sent from Brittain Hill's PDA
From: Manoly, KamalSent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 04:06 PM Eastern Standard TimeTo: Munson, CliffordCc: Ake, Jon; Hill, Brittain; Li, Yong; Markley, Michael; Lupold, Timothy; Karas, Rebecca; Ross-Lee,MaryJane; Hiland, Patrick; Oesterle, Eric; Sebrosky, JosephSubject: Proposed Questions to PG&E
Cliff,
I see no relevance or value from asking PG&E question #5 about "In-structuremotions (different damping values & appropriate comparisons)". The sole focusshould be on confirming that PG&E new shoreline fault ground motion estimate isreasonable and acceptable to the staff. With such confirmation, then, the hazard fromthe shoreline fault would be bounded by the "Old" Hosgri. That should be the endpoint of our assessment of the CA report.
Introducing a question as to whether the damping values to be used for the 2014hazard estimate of the shoreline fault may be different from that used in the 2011evaluation would be pointless and shifting the focus to a totally unrelated issue. Youwill never find any documented reference that correlates slight change in hazard vsdamping values for structural materials. Remember, in RG 1.61 we prescribe (for aspecific structural material) a single damping value to be used by ALL plants in theUS for OBEs and another for ALL SSEs regardless of the location. The reason isbased on acceptable understanding that viscous structural damping would generally
be lower at lower deformation level. We know that ground motion estimates for OBEsand SSEs vary greatly from low seismic regions such as the Gulf States vs. highseismic regions such as CA. For this reasoning, asking the question about the effectof different damping values on in-structural response due to slight change in hazardwould be worthless and totally distracting from the central issue in the CA report.
Kamal Manoly
Senior Level Technical Advisor for Structural Mechanics
Division of Engineering
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
301-415-2765
From: Sebrosk/, JosephTo, Wilson, GeomeSubject: FW: Info and possible action: former senior resident article dated 9/15 appears to raise issues that should be
turned over to the IGDate: Monday, September 22, 2014 5:11:00 AM
George,
The email chain below includes a link to Mr. Peck's response to the DPO appeal beingpublished. My read of it was not the same as Neil's read on it.
Joe
From: OKeefe, NeilSent: Saturday, September 20, 2014 12:45 PMTo: Sebrosky, JosephCc: Markley, Michael; Case, Michael; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Balazik, MichaelSubject: RE: info and possible action: former senior resident article dated 9/15 appears to raise Issuesthat should be turned over to the IG
All,
I read Peck's response to the DPO appeal answer, and I did not identify any newinformation.
It contains the same factual errors and misunderstandings that were presented andanswered in his DPO and DPO appeal. It also contains the same kind of over-statementsabout what the regulations require and misstatements about what the NRC and licenseedid, and why. I interpret this to mean that he has dismissed the official answers the NRChas provided to his DPO and DPO appeal.
I do not believe there are any statements of impropriety on any individuals, nor do I seeany value to sending to the OIG; however, I always believe that if anyone feels itappropriate to do so, I will support them with the same energy I supported Peck's DPO.Knowing Michael, I interpret his writing as unusually patient and restrained with respect tohis statements about the NRC.
Neil O'KeefeChief, Branch BDRP, RIV(817) 200-1141 (o)
IjI(c)
from; Sebrosky, JosephSent: Friday, September 19, 2014 11:44 AMTo: Markley, Michael; OKeefe, Neil; Case, MichaelCc: Walker, Wayne; Hlpschman, Thomas; Balazik, MichaelSubject: info and possible action: former senior resident article dated 9/15 appears to raise issues thatshould be turned over to the IG The rest of this string may be found as document C18.
From: Sebrosky. JosephTo: Bowers. Anthony; Dudek. Michael; Karas, Rebecca; Buchanan, Theresa; Walker. Wayne; Hinschman. Thomas;
anoly. Kama L1 n Williams. Megan; e i . L lQd TimoJhy Farnhol1z. Thomas ITomHloschman Lund, Louise PruetTroyI Hay, Michael HUland, Patrick Wilson, George Kock, AndreaRoth(OGC. David Young, Mtz Harris. Brian; Kanatas. Catherine; Brnell. Scott
Cc: Flanders. ScottSubject: internal meeting to discuss Diablo operability determination associated with new seismic information In the State
of California reportStart. Friday, September 19, 2014 1:00:00 PMEnd: Friday, September 19, 2014 2:00:00 PMLocation; HQ-OWFN-09B06-12pAttachments. PGE soectral comUa=ison.ootx
Bridge: 8BL§ZZ.(90Passcode.
Purpose: Internal meeting with SES managers to discuss process going forward for Diablo Canyon operability determination associatedwith new seismic information in the State of California report
Outcome: Decision made on how to proceed
Agenda:
Non ResoonsivePublic released DPO and DPO appeal suggests in the 2012 time frame the licensee should have also compared the new hazards to theDDEDPO decision do=iuments the additional analysis that was done hv the licenepn
Non ResponsiveIssue - what is the NRC's position on the caics that the licensee should do to verify operabilityPosition that no additional calcs are neededPosition that calcs or comparisons are needed baEed on orecedence set in DPO-
E - Non Responsive
III. Recommendation
Non Responsive
Next stepsWrapup
Non Responsive
Non Responsive
N'onl Responstve
From: Sebrosky, JosephSent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 6:05 AMTo: Stovall, Scott; Munson, Clifford; Williams, Megan; Li, Yong; Hipschman, Thomas; Walker,
Wayne; Oesterle, Eric; Singal, Balwant; Markley, Michael; Jackson, Diane; DiFrancesco,Nicholas; Whaley, Sheena; Uselding, Lara; Ake, Jon; Burnell, Scott; OKeefe, Neil;Farnholtz, Thomas; Kanatas, Catherine; Roth(OGC), David; Manoly, Kamal; Reynoso,John; Hill, Brittain; Dudek, Michael; John Stamatakos ([email protected]); Stirewalt, Gerry;Buchanan, Theresa; Weaver, Thomas; Karas, Rebecca; Graizer, Vladimir; Hiland, Patrick;Ross-Lee, MaryJane; Lupold, Timothy; Wilson, George; Bowers, Anthony; Alexander,Ryan; Hay, Michael; Pruett, Troy; Kock, Andrea; Young, Mitzi; Harris, Brian
Subject: RE: info: status of diablo operability review 9-23-14
To all,
The purpose of this email is to provide you with the results of an inspection phone call with the licenseeyesterday (9/22) regarding the Diablo Canyon operability review.
During the call PG&E provided the following information:
Non Responsive
PG&E indicated that based on a question from RIV last Friday (9/19) it was rerunning the calculationsused to support the resolution of the DPO (see description in DPO case file pdf page 62 of 164 atML14252A743 which discusses the scaling factors used in the March 2014 PG&E analysis). PG&Eindicated that it did not believe that the analysis was needed to demonstrate operability. Nevertheless,PG&E was rerunning the analysis with the data from the 2014 State of California report and shouldhave the results for the Region to review by the end of this week.
c/K
Non Responsive
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Joe
From: Sebrosky, JosephSent Thursday, September 25, 2014 12:51 PMTo: Stovall, Scott; Munson, Clifford; Williams, Megan; Li, Yong; Hipschman, Thomas; Walker,
Wayne; Oesterle, Eric; Singal, Balwant; Markley, Michael; Jackson, Diane; DiFrancesco,Nicholas; Whaley, Sheena; Uselding, Lara; Ake, Jon; Burnell, Scott; OKeefe, Neil;Farnholtz, Thomas; Manoly, Kamal; Reynoso, John; Hill, Brittain; Dudek, Michael; JohnStamatakos ([email protected]); Stirewalt, Gerry; Buchanan, Theresa; Weaver, Thomas;Karas, Rebecca; Graizer, Vladimir; Hiland, Patrick; Ross-Lee, MaryJane; Lupold, Timothy;Wilson, George; Bowers, Anthony; Alexander, Ryan; Hay, Michael; Pruett, Troy; Kock,Andrea; Harris, Brian; Vaidya, Bhalchandra; Klett, Audrey; Smith, Chris
Subject: info: status of diablo operability review 9-25-14
To all,
The purpose of this email is to provide you with updated status regarding the Diablo Canyon operability review.This email includes updates on the status of NRC inspection information requests and the assignment ofadditional headquarters PMs to help with the workload.
Based on discussions RIV had with PG&E today, PG&E is targeting providing information that wasrequested on 9/22 either late today or sometime tomorrow to support the NRC's review of theoperability determination. The information that RIV requested was in the following 3 areas:
Non Responsiv
3) Provide the results of the calculations that were rerun based on the calculations used to supportthe resolution of the DPO (see description in DPO case file pdf page 62 of 164 at ML14252A 743which discusses the scaling factors used in the March 2014 PG&E analysis). PG&E indicatedthat it did not believe that the analysis was needed to demonstrate operability, Nevertheless,PG&E was rerunning the analysis with the data from the 2014 State of California report.
te
Non Responsivc
Non Responsive
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Joe
2
Non Responsive
Subject:Location:
internal meeting to discuss assessment of diablo canyon operability informationHQ-OWFN-09B06-12p
Start:End:Show Time As:
Recurrence:
Meeting Status:
Wed 10/01/2014 12:45 PMWed 10/01/2014 1:45 PMTentative
(none)
Not yet responded
Organizer:Required Attendees:
Optional Attendees:
Sebrosky, JosephMunson, Clifford; Li, Yong; Hipschman, Thomas; Walker, Wayne; Oesterle, Eric; Markley,Michael; Karas, Rebecca; DiFrancesco, Nicholas; Farnholtz, Thomas; Smith, Chris; Manoly,Kamal; Reynoso, John; Hill, Brittain; Kock, Andrea; Vaidya, Bhalchandra; Klett, Audrey;Harris, Brian; Ake, Jon; Alexander, Ryar; Lupold, Timothy; Graizer, Vladimir; JohnStamatakos ([email protected]); Weaver, ThomasStovall, Scott; Williams, Megan
Note: scheduler updated to include new information under item Agenda item II below. The new information isbased on input from Cliff Munson
Bridge: 888-677-0690Passcode: j
Purpose: For Britt Hill, Kamal Manoly, Yong Li, Cliff Munson, Jon Ake, Chris Smith and Ryan Alexander to briefthe diablo canyon operability review team on the preliminary assessment of the additionalinformation PG&E provided via certrec and to determine the next steps in the process
Non Responsive
Agenda:
•I. Background - Information needs identified to PG&E
The information that RIV requested was in the following 3 areas:
Non Responsive
3) Provide the results of the calculations that were rerun based on the calculations used to supportthe resolution of the DPO (see description in DPO case file pdf page 62 of 164 at ML 14252A 743
I
which discusses the scaling factors used in the March 2014 PG&E analysis). PG&E indicatedthat it did not believe that the analysis was needed to demonstrate operability. Nevertheless,PG&E was rerunning the analysis with the data from the 2014 State of California report.
II. I
Non Responsive
Non Responsive
2
III.
IV.
V.
Non Responsive
VI. Other assessmentsa. DPO update?
Non Responsiveý
VII. Wrapup
3
From: Oesterle, EricSent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 7:03 AMTo: Stovall, Scott; Munson, Clifford; Williams, Megan; Li, Yong; Hipschman, Thomas; Walker,
Wayne; Markley, Michael; George, Andrea; Jackson, Diane; DiFrancesco, Nicholas;Whaley, Sheena; Uselding, Lara; Ake, Jon; Burnell, Scott; OKeefe, Neil; Farnholtz, Thomas;Manoly, Kamal; Reynoso, John; Hill, Brittain; Harris, Brian; Klett, Audrey; Dudek, Michael;John Stamatakos; Stirewalt, Gerry; Buchanan, Theresa; Weaver, Thomas; Karas, Rebecca;Graizer, Vladimir; Hiland, Patrick; Ross-Lee, MaryJane; Lupold, Timothy; Wilson, George;Bowers, Anthony; Alexander, Ryan; Hay, Michael; Pruett, Troy; Kock, Andrea
Subject: Status of Diablo Canyon ActivitiesAttachments: Status Update on DCPP for Jennifer Uhle.docx
The purpose of this email is to provide a status on the multitude of Diablo Canyon activities that staff has beenworking on this week.
N'on RespoflsivE
Non Responsive
Ill. Filings associated with Friends of the Earth (FOE) Hearing Requesta. NRC response to FOE hearing request filed 10/6b. Additional filings also made by PG&E, NEI, and PG&E Senior Civil Engineer on 10/6c. 'Next steps - FOE response within 7 days and, also within 10 days of the PG&E's answer and
NEI's motion and brief, everybody else (NRC Staff included) can file a motion asking theCommission to take some action against the other filings (e.g. strike part of the answer) - reviewof the other 3 filings underway
IV. FOE FOIA request on timing of PG&E Seismic Report and DPO Appeal decisiona. Information from various offices received by FOIA coordinator - going through duplication
reviewb. Expected release of documents in packages - first one expected this weekc. Review of remaining packages for withholding to be performed to support releases expected
week of 10/13.
V. EPW Questions - DORL staff continues to work with Region IV and NRR/DE on finalizing draftresponses - coordinating with OCA - target issuance by 10/22
There continues to be a lot of activity associated with Diablo Canyon and I appreciate everyone's support. Weare making good progress on these challenging issuesI I
ý,Res;osv ý,, I I haemse oehn htyuaeprticula'rly inte'resting ýin ple~ase do~n't hes~itatet
contact me. Thanksl
ErCcR. Oe4te#ieNRC Project ManagerDiablo Canyon Power PlantCooper Nuclear StationNRR/DORL/LPL4-1301-415-1014
2
From: Sebrosky, JosephSent: Monday, March 03, 2014 12:12 PMTo: Kim, James; Markley, MichaelCc: Hipschman, Thomas; Walker, Wayne; Regner, Lisa; Wilson, George; Harris, Brian; OKeefe,
Neil; Munson, Clifford; DiFrancesco, Nicholas; Hale, JerrySubject RE: Request for phone call with DCPP to discuss guidance regarding seismic licensing
basis relative to the 2/20/14 seismic eric leeds letter
Jim and Mike,
Non Responsive
Non Responsive
From: Sebrosky, JosephSent: Monday, March 03, 2014 8:13 AMTo: Kim, James; Markley, MichaelCc: Hipschman, Thomas; Walker, Wayne; Regner, Lisa; Wilson, George; Harris, Brian; OKeefe, Neil; Munson, CliffordSubject: RE: Request for phone call with DCPP to discuss guidance regarding seismic licensing basis relative to the2/20/14 seismic eric leeds letter
Jim and Mike,
Non Responsive,
BackQround
I am not sure the exact nature of PG&E's question below but because of a license renewal contention in thisarea and an ongoing DPO, I am extremely sensitive to providing feedback on this issue. Non Rev
Non Responsive
2
Non Responsive
Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I am missing something.
Thanks,
Joe SebroskyNon Responsive
3
Non Responsie
4
Alexander, Ryan
From: Holian, BrianSent Wednesday, December 10, 2014.2:09 PMTo: OKeefe, NellCc: Walker, Wayne; Pruett, Troy; Alexander, RyanSubject: Re: Seismic Design and Licensing Basis Question
NeilGreat email and summary! III plan to discuss at nrr, with your email in frt of me... And will schedule a call to discuss.Thx muchGood seeing all of you-brian
From: OKeefe, NellSent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:42 AM Eastern Standard TimeTo: Holian, BrianCc: Walker, Wayne; Pruett, Troy; Alexander, RyanSubject: Seismic Design and Licensing Basis Question
Brian,
1ý
)
Neil O'KeefeChief, Branch BDRP, RIV(817) 200-1141 (ol
S (b)() Ic)
2
•qLPWl•l•| AI II•Pu •&ll ID n• ..............
a.r~n aa ~t ~ .... ,. .'.~. rL iru vbL NEII-TLiNA INFORMATIQI+-
Revision: 1 (11/26/14) Page 5OFIC'IAL USE O'!--EtJITIVE INTERNAL INFPRMAiiOn--
Vg W gVg• Vy• Vg• U Ig gm~g~ I.IIWV AT20N gW~
Revision: 1 (11/26/14)OFFICIAL USE ONLY.
Page-6=11lih1 I.TUSITIV I '! '.-FrIJ.ýF".=I kIrJ:faRA -,,,7%irl 4 ,
• gglu vg •gvl• B gvg•
OFFIIAL SE O.U NS19FSIIVE INTERNAL INFeRMATIONl%&
Revision: 1 (11/26/14).....ie.A .USE L'E "
Page 47MM':!Mý"'1 , 2i - dPUT:J IJ IJ.-. 3 rr , -,I1t
Viii IVU ilVll • Vl i1•lb g • ¥11•llIFln IIVil
CIF IA jmfKI e=tori I~I A I&~~.i.-.. '- ~~= i~ Iuv p1 = m...RIPIjL.. iiw ijiiiuA I iN
Revision: 1 (11/26/14)1 OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(b)(5)
Page 48- ISITIVE WNERNAL INFORMOTIOW
IVI-i UIAL U45F ONLY - RFN'RfTIVr ~U IIrnMTnI-.f M-09 A.r~ *r 9^Lll **............... ml III•• 1 I Vbe jl l,1'i= 1w11 rl- %ll I1.11
If
Revision: 1 (11/26/14)eFFICIAL USE. ONLY - %?"IV.SITIV." INTE-RNAL Il%'FWkATION Page 49
a. . ,n.- -. k.. -.
WoiL~ OlIV LiNfJERNALRIGNFORMATION
(b)Lf)
Revision: 1 (11126/14)OFFICIAL USE ONLY - SENSITIVE
Page 50INTFRNA! ItJrnRI'iiTFnI~'........
R N V ir"l it |•11
OFFICIAL USE ON~LY - SSNSITIVE INTERI~kE IN~FORMATION-w
Revision: 1 (11/26114)l OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 51SENSITWIE INTERNAL IlNFORMATION
Alexander, Ryan
From: Pedersen, ReneeSent: Friday, March 07, 2014 1:10 PMTo: Powell, AmyCc: Rothschild, Trip; Shane, Raeann; Solorio, Dave; Campbell, Andy; Zimmerman, Roy;
Sewell, MargaretSubject RE: HELP!! DPO Response to Boxer
Amy,
Thanks for the response. Just to be clear, the DPO submittal is 1 scanned NRC record (it may include severalreferences or parts) from the employee.
We can provide the record if the Commission approves. There may be value in including some basicinformation on our process in the response, including that the DPO Program supports openness andtransparency when the process is complete. Just a thought.
Please let us know the path forward and please provide guidance with respect to the document marking. (TheDPO submittal is included on a form which doesn't have a big margin.)
Ren6e
From: Powell, AmySent: Friday, March 07, 2014 12:11 PMTo: Pedersen, ReneeCc: Rothschild, Trip; Shane, RaeannSubject: RE: HELP!! DPO Response to Boxer
You ask a complicated question. I am cc'ing Trip in OGC as this wades into legal territory; I understand thatyou two have talked about this as well.
We'll keep you in the loop as Commission conversations continue via the daily Chiefs of Staff meetings. I amon the Hill all afternoon but in Monday if you want to discuss.
Thanks,Amy
Amy PowellActing DirectorU. S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionOffice of Congressional Affairs
c(,q
Phone: 301-415-1673
From: Pedersen, ReneeSent: Friday, March 07, 2014 9:06 AMTo: Powell, AmySubject: FW: HELP!! DPO Response to BoxerImportance: High
Amy,
Raeann is out. Can you tell me what our practice is with a Congressional request for a predecisionaldocument?
From: Pedersen, ReneeSent: Friday, March 07, 2014 8:56 AMTo: Shane, RaeannCc: Solorio, Dave; Sewell, MargaretSubject: HELP!I DPO Response to BoxerImportance: High
Raeann,
You are probably away of the letter we just got from Boxer.
2. Please provide me with a copy of the Differing Professional OpiniCanyon Power Plant (DCPP) prepared by NRC's former Senior R(Dr. Michael Peck) that is currently pending before the Commissk
We previously talked about this type of scenario. In particular, this DPO is still being processed within ourDPO process. It is currently being evaluated by a DPO Panel. The DPO Panel issues a report and then theDirector, NRR issues a DPO Decision to the individual. The individual has an opportunity to appeal to the EDOand then the EDO evaluates and issues a DPO Appeal Decision. At this point the process is consideredclosed and we ask the individual if he would like the DPO Case file public. If he says yes, NRR performs areleasability review and includes a link to the DPO Case File along with a summary of the case that is postedon the WIR. This could be several months.
The document is considered pre-decisional and not for public release, So, does this mean we can tellCongress, no? Premature release of the document could have a potentially negative impact on the DPOprocess.
Thoughts?
2
Alexander, Ryan
From: Markley, MichaelSent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:26 AMTo: Walker, Wayne; Alexander, RyanSubject. FW: ACTION: Issue OEDO Ticket for Responses to Senate EPW QFRsAttachments: RE: HELP!! DPO Response to Boxer
From: Pedersen, ReneeSent: Monday, March 10, 2014 12:27 PMTo: Markley, MichaelCc: Solorlo, Dave; Sewell, MargaretSubject: RE: ACTION: Issue OEDO Ticket for Responses to Senate EPW QFRs
Mike,
The DPO is not rublicly available and has limited distribution within the NRC. Please see my email exchangewith OPA.
Ren~e
From: Markley, MichaelSent: Monday, March 10, 2014 12:21 PMTo: Pedersen, ReneeSubject: FW: ACTION: Issue OEDO Ticket for Responses to Senate EPW QFRsImportance: High
Renee,
Please see Boxer's requested items 2 and 3. OE is tasked with responding to item 2, but we (NRR) are taskedwith responding to item 3.
Question: Is the DPO and associated documents publicly available?
Mike
From: Orf, TracySent: Friday, March 07, 2014 7:52 AMTo: NRRDORLBCs DistributionCc: Evans, Michele; Monninger, John; Lantz, Ryan; Lund, LouiseSubject: FW: ACTION: Issue OEDO Ticket for Responses to Senate EPW QFRsImportance: High
Heads up! Attached are questions that came out of the Commission's Senate EPW oversight hearing. Someof these questions will take a while to answer and resemble a FOIA. Others will require the PMs to check theirtech specs and search ADAMS.
Looks like a major effort.
Thanks,
1
C,) ( QP6
Trace
From: Wertz, TrentSent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 2:44 PMTo: Orf, Tracy; Anderson, Shaun; Moore, Ross; Jessup, William; Schmitt, Ronald; Lian, Jocelyn; Mahoney, Michael;Lyons, SaraSubject: FW: ACTION: Issue OEDO Ticket for Responses to Senate EPW QFRsImportance: High
Heads Up.
The ticket will be issued shortly with a due date of March 28. These will be due to me by COB March 26. I'llpass along the TAC as soon as I get it.
Here are the assignments. Let me know if you think something should be changed:
ChairmanBoxer 1,3,5 - DORLBoxer 6 - DSSCarper 1 - DIRS support NSIR as neededGillibrand 1 - DLRGillibrand 2 - DORLGillibrand 3 - JLDGillibrand 4- DIRSVitter 1-12- DLR/DORL/DE support NRO as neededVitter 14-26 - JLDVitter 36 - DORLVitter 37 - DEVitter 39, 41-45,53 - DPRVitter 55 - DORL/DIRSVitter 61,62 - DORLVitter 63-67 - DPRVitter 79-85 - DORL/DIRS support NRO as neededSessions 1 - DORLSessions 2b,c - DPRSessions 2d - JLD/DPRFischer 1 - DPRFischer 2 - DRA
For Comm SvinickiCarper 2 - JLDSessions 2 - JLD
For Comm OstendorffCarper 1,2 - JLDSessions 2a - DIRS
Thanks,Trent
From: Rihm, RogerSent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 2;04 PMTo: Jaegers, Cathy
2
Cc: Landau, Mindy; Wertz, Trent; Orf, Tracy; Hudson, Jody; Atack, Sabrina; Williams, Donna; Trocine, Leigh; Rini, Brett;Sun, RobertSubject: ACTION: Issue OEDO Ticket for Responses to Senate EPW QFRsImportance: High
Attached are ticket instructions, response template, and copy of C.FRs with office assignments. If you needanything else, let me know.
3
From:To:CC:SubjectuDate:Attachments,
Multlins. CharlesOestedle, Eric: lxne.Ra} Markley. Michael
Walker, Waynle
RE: DCPP Communications PlanTuesday, November 25, 2014 5:25:47 PMImage.0a1ong
I fb (5I1
From: Oesterle, EricSent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 4:46 PMTo: Mullins, Charles; Alexander, Ryan; Markley, MichaelCc: Walker, WayneSubject: RE: DCPP Communications PlanImportance: High
Chuck,
(b)(5
Hope that summary helps. You may want to consider using some of it in your response.
Ertc'R. Oe~terle/NRC Project Manager
Diablo Canyon Power Plant
Cooper Nuclear Station
NRR/DORL/LPL4-1
301-415-1014
COO
From: Mullins, CharlesSent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 4:15 PMTo: Alexander, Ryan; Markley, MichaelCc: Oesterle, Eric; Walker, WayneSubject: RE: DCPP Communications Plan
Ryan;
Thanks. I think this will be quite helpful.
Chuck Mullins
From: Alexander, RyanSent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 3:46 PMTo: Markley, Michael; Mullins, CharlesCc: Oesterle, Eric; Walker, WayneSubject; FW: DCPP Communications Plan
Mike:
The full internally available Diablo Canyon Comm Plan (Revision 0) is available at theOEDO Comm Plan SharePoint site at:
ht p:ltfusion~nrc.gov/edoiteam/CPMICommPlans/l.ayouts/listform.aspx?PageType=4&Listld={52972D7A-EDC-4DE2-984B-6A8AAE78C74CA&ID=63&ContentTypelD=0xO10043278097A1424145B8EF8AC452B1OF19
However, attached is the current "working version" of the Diablo Ca Van Gomm P Lean __eDraft Revision 1). This draft revision includes updates regarding (1)| Non Responsive]
n (3) Answers to Senate E W Questions, (4)
Non Res.onsive
The updated text in the attached is typically in red, or in the case of new sections there is anote in .r.ed. text statincg that the entire section was replacedl/added.I J
•- Non Responsive
Hope this helps!
Ryan D. AlexanderSenior Project Engineer
NRC Region IV, Div. of Reactor Projects, Branch A
Office: (817) 200-1195
Cell:
-- Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: Walker, WayneSent Tuesday, November 25, 2014 2:22 PMTo: Alexander, RyanSubject: FW: DCPP Communications Plan
Ryan,
Can you send him the plan that is online and also the draft portions. Thanks.
Wayne
From: Markley, MichaelSent: Tuesday, November 25, 20i4 2:21 PMTo: Walker, WayneCc: Mullins, Charles; Oesterle, EricSubject: DCPP Communications Plan
Wayne,
Can you send the latest version of the DCPP communications plan. He is addressing alawsuit by FOE.
Mike
From:To:Cc;Subject:Date:
Oestedle. Eric: BafrPtrLoFe
RE: Documents for the lawsuitMonday, November 24, 2014 12:50:36 PM
Ok.
Here is the procesgi I am in
(b)(5)
I Do you have ML numbersfor these documents? And do you have any thoughts on where they came in the overallprocess?
I know you are busy today. I also know it is a holiday week and the contact in RIV is alsoout today. Is there anyone else who might be able to work with me?
(and yes, that is a CRAZY meeting schedule!!)
From: Markley, MichaelSent: Monday, November 24, 2014 12:37 PMTo: Mullins, CharlesCc: Oesterle, Eric; Bamford, Peter; Lyon, FredSubject: RE: Documents for the lawsuit
This is a holiday week. Sorry...
My availability is only before 1:00 pm. I am going to grab some lunch but will be back in afew minutes. I have meetings:
1-2:00pm1:30-3:30pm3:00-4:00pm
Have you checked with Rene Pedersen in OE? She was the DPO manager.
I am confused by the process we are in now. These documents are all in ADAMs, except
C/C2I
possibly e-mail. Are these official requests under "discovery"?
For the FSAR revision 21. You would need to check with Peter Bamford. Fred Lyon willbe back tomorrow.
Mike
From: Mullins, CharlesSent: Monday, November 24, 2014 12:22 PMTo: Markley, MichaelSubject: Documents for the lawsuit
Michael;
The petitioners want to include a list of documents in the record of the case. Do you havea few minutes this afternoon to discuss them?
Chuck
From: John Bernetich [mailto:bernetichj(&ayreslawgroua.com]Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 12:01 PMTo: Mullins, CharlesCc: Richard E. Ayres; Jessica OlsonSubject: Re: My current view of the Record
Chuck,
We intend to ask for the following documents:
1. Two inspection reports cited in the June 23, 2014 memo from Peter Bamford to MichaelMarkley (IR 2012004, IR 2011005)2. A "change report" submitted by PG&E to accompany its submission of FSAR Revision 21(in addition to the cover letter)3. Documents cited by Dr. Peck in his appeal of the Panel Report issued in DPO-2013-0024. Any documents related to a 50.59 review prepared for Revision 21, including emailsbetween PG&E and NRC, and between NRC Staff members
In addition, we do not agree with your suggestion that the documents from the de factolicensing proceeding before the Commission should be included in the record for the Court ofAppeals on the Revision 21 issue.
Thanks,John
John BernetichAssociate AttorneyAyres Law Group LLPPh: (202) 452-9200
Dir: (202) 416-0241maymayreslawgroup.corm
Wertz, Trent
From:Sent:To:Cc:
Subject:Attachments:
Sewell, MargaretWednesday, March 19, 2014 10:29 AMCase, MichaelSheron, Brian; West, Steven; Hill, Brittain; Bernhard, Rudolph; Leeds, Eric; Gitter, Joseph;Wertz, Trent; Pedersen, Renee; Solorio, DaveRE: DPO Status UpdateDPO Panel Report.doc; Milestones and Timeliness Goals.docx
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the update on the DPO. Just in case you need it, I'm attaching some DPO panel report instructionsalong with a template for your use. Just let me know if you need anything else.
In light of the activities that still need to be done by the panel, it seems likely that you will need anotherextension. The current Milestones & Timelineness goals (attached) indicate that Eric will issue his decision bynext Fri., 3/28, which may not be realistic. If you decide to request an extension, please let me know as quicklyas possible so that I can submit it to EDO.
(b)ý5)
Please let me know if you have any questions and/or if you'll need the extension.
Thanks!Marge
From: Case, MichaelSent: Monday, March 10, 2014 2:01 PMTo: Wertz, Trent; Sewell, Margaret; Glitter, Joseph; Leeds, EricCc: Sheron, Brian; West, Steven; Hill, Brittaln; Bernhard, RudolphSubject: DPO Status Update
I just wanted to keep you all informed about DPO status. Britt and I made it to CA to review some informationthat PG&E developed for us (see attached status I gave the DPO submitter), I thought was we saw was verygood evidence with respect to the issues in the DPO and very much worth the "wait". (Easy for me to say, butwe do really appreciate the support you have given us to fully illuminate the issues). Britt deserves a greatdeal of credit because he was prime architect behind our thoughts.
Still have to formally write up what we saw.Do a minimal amount of polishingGet Joe to give us a sanity checkGet the report to Eric.
Thanks again for your support.I
MEMORANDUM TO: Panel ChairPanel MemberPanel Member
FROM: (Name of Office Director or Regional Administrator)
SUBJECT: AD HOC REVIEW PANEL - DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION ON(use subject description from tasking) (DPO-20YY-nnn)
In accordance with Management Directive (MD) 10.159, "The NRC Differing ProfessionalOpinions Program," I am appointing you as members of a Differing Professional Opinion (DPO)Ad Hoc Review Panel (DPO Panel) to review a DPO that was forwarded to me to disposition.
The DPO (Enclosure 1) raises concerns (subject).
I have designated (name) chairman of this DPO Panel and (name) as a DPO Panel member.(Name) was proposed by the DPO submitter and serves as the third member of the DPO Panel.[Optional: Because this issue addresses enforcement, (name) is serving as the fourth
.member.] In accordance with the guidance included in MD 10.159 and consistent with the DPOProgram objectives, I task the DPO Panel to do the following:
El Review the DPO submittal to determine if sufficient information has been provided toundertake a detailed review of the issue.
LI Meet with the submitter, as soon as practicable, to ensure that the DPO Panelunderstands the submitter's concerns and scope of the issues. (Normally within 7 days.)
11 Promptly after the meeting, document the DPO Panel's understanding of the submitter'sconcerns, provide the Statement of Concerns (SOC) to the submitter, and request thatthe submitter review and provide comments, if necessary. (Normally within 7 days.)
LI Maintain the scope of the review to not exceed those issues as defined in the originalwritten DPO and confirmed in the SOC.
LI Consult with me as necessary to discuss schedule-related issues, the need for technicalsupport (if necessary), or the need for administrative support for the DPO Panel'sactivities.
LI Perform a detailed review of the issues and conduct any record reviews, interviews, anddiscussions you deem necessary for a complete, objective, independent, and impartialreview. The DPO Panel should re-interview individuals as necessary to clarifyinformation during the review. In particular, the DPO Panel should have periodicdiscussions with the submitter to provide the submitter the opportunity to further clarifythe submitter's views and to facilitate the exchange of information.
Multiple Addressees 2
11 Provide monthly status updates on your activities via email to Renee Pedersen, DifferingViews Program Manager (DVPM) about the last day of the month. This information willbe reflected in the Milestones and Timeliness Goals for this DPO. Please provide a copyof email status updates to the submitter and to me.
El Issue a DPO Panel report, including conclusions and recommendations to me regardingthe disposition of the issues presented in the DPO. The report should be a collaborativeproduct and include all DPO Panel member's concurrence. Follow the specificprocessing instructions for DPO documents.
LI Consult me as soon as you believe that a schedule extension is necessary to dispositionthe DPO.
LI Recommend whether the DPO submitter should be recognized if the submitter's actionsresult in significant contributions to the mission of the agency.
Disposition of this DPO should be considered an important and time sensitive activity. Thetimeliness goal included in the MD for issuing a DPO Decision is 120 calendar days from the daythe DPO is accepted for review. The timeliness goal for issuing this DPO Decision is (date).
Process Milestones and Timeliness Goals for this DPO are included as Enclosure 2. Thetimeframes for completing process milestones are identified strictly as g.oals-a way of workingtowards reaching the DPO timeliness goal of 120 calendar days. The timeliness goal identifiedfor your DPO task is 70 calendar days.
Although timeliness is an important DPO Program objective, the DPO Program also sets out toensure that issues receive a thorough and independent review. The overall timeliness goalshould be based on the significance and complexity of the issues and the priority of otheragency work. Therefore, if you determine that your activity will result in the need for anextension beyond the overall 120-day timeliness goal, please send me an email with the reasonfor the extension request and a new completion date. I will subsequently forward this request tothe DVPM who will forward it to the EDO for approval.
Please ensure that all DPO-related activities are charged to Activity Code ZG0007.
Because this process is not routine, the DVPM will be meeting and communicating with allparties during the process to ensure that everyone understands the process, goals, andresponsibilities. The DVPM will be subsequently sending you information intended to aid you inimplementing the DPO process.
An important aspect of our internal safety culture includes respect for differing views. As such,you should exercise discretion and treat this matter sensitively. Documents should bedistributed on an as-needed basis. In an effort to preserve privacy, minimize the effect on thework unit, and keep the focus on the issues, you should simply refer to the employee as theDPO submitter. Avoid conversations that could be perceived as "hallway talk" on the issue. Weneed to do everything that we can in order to create an organizational climate that does not chillemployees from raising dissenting views. It is appropriate for employees to discuss the detailsof the DPO with their co-workers as part of the evaluation; however, as with other predecisional
Multiple Addressees 3
processes, employees should not discuss details of the DPO outside the agency.
As a final administrative note, please ensure that all correspondence associated with this caseinclude the DPO number in the subject line, be profiled in accordance with ADAMS template OE-011, be identified as non-public with limited viewer rights to those included on distribution ofcorrespondence and declared an official agency record when the correspondence is issued.Please email the ADAMS accession number for the record to DPQOPM.R'esource(,nrcqo, andthe record will be filed in the applicable DPO case file folder (DPO-YYYY-NNN) in the ADAMSMain Library. Following this process will ensure that a complete agency record is generated forthe disposition of this DPO. If the submitter requests that the documents included in the DPOCase File be made public when the process is complete, you will be provided specific guidanceto support a releasability review.
I appreciate your willingness to serve and your dedication to completing an independent andobjective review of this DPO. Successful resolution of the issues is important for NRC and itsstakeholders. If you have any questions, you may contact me, Ren6e Pedersen, DVPM, at(301) 415-2742, or Marge Sewell, Safety Culture Specialist at (301) 415-8045.
I look forward to receiving your independent review results and recommendations.
Enclosures:1. DPO-20YY-nnn2. Milestones and Timeliness Goals
cc w/o Enclosure:SubmitterDVPM
From- Mulllns, CharlesTo: ,arklh ael
Subject: ObservationDate: Friday, November 21, 2014 5:15:41 PM
Michael;
petiionm II will bring it d'own on Monday and you can read it
Have a great weekend.
Chuck
Cji)-
From;To;Cc:Subject:Date:Attachments:
Sebroskv. JosephDudek, Michael
Bowers, Anthony; Markley, Michael; etere, Eric IAttached email is publicly a
RE: Proposed Questons to PG8.E documents D/25 and D/26
Friday, September 19, 2014 6:35:22 AM #2 in FOIA-2014-0488 (ML
FW O)ld PGE and the NRC work to=ether to spin news on Diablo Canyon avake safetv.msa
ivailable as part ofin interim response14322A779). I......... t"
Thanks -1 I I will work with Tony to discuss the issue below, and toensure the EDO staff is aware that in the attached email NRR DORL management h•cn
Joe
From: Dudek, MichaelSent: Friday, September 19, 2014 6:18 AMTo: Sebrosky, Joseph; Bowers, AnthonySubject: Re: Proposed Questions to PG&E
Morning Joe!I kco I willnot be in the office. Tony Bowers will carry the ball for this. He'll be able to break down any barriersthat you need.
Sent from an NRC BlackberryMichael I. Dudek
From: Sebrosky, JosephSent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 05:20 PM Eastern Standard TimeTo: Dudek, MichaelCc: Walker, Wayne; OKeefe, Neil; Oesterle, Eric; Markley, Michael; Karas, Rebecca; Lupold, TimothySubject: FW: Proposed Questions to PG&E
Mike,
I am going to give you a call on this. We need to confirm with the EDO's office that theposition taken in the DPO appeal is that the operability determination for Diablo shouldhave also included a comparison to the DDE.I
Non Responsive
I have been asked by my management to check with the EDO's office on this.
I will try to call you later tonight or early tomorrow to discuss.
Thanks,
Joe
C/lah
From: Sebrosky, JosephSent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 9:34 AMTo: Hiland, PatrickCc: Ake, Jon; Li, Yong; Markley, Michael; Lupold, Timothy; Karas, Rebecca; Ross-Lee, MaryJane;Oesterle, Eric; Wilson, George; Walker, Wayne; OKeefe, Neil; Hipschman, Thomas; Munson, Clifford;Manoly, Kamal; Hill, BrittairSubject: RE: Proposed Questions to PG&E
Pat,
The purpose of this email is to provide you with the reference documents that I discussedwith you this morning that serves as the basis for why I believe it is important tounderstand PG&E's position on whether or not in-structure motions (different dampingvalues and comparisons) have been done. Specifically I referenced information that is inthe DPO. The DPO case file can be found at: ML1A252A743
The case file is 164 pages long. The most important portion of the case file to me is thelast 5 pages (i.e., 159 - 164) that documents the EDO's appeal decision. The 5 pagedocument provides a concise history of the issue and also includes the followingdiscussion on page 4:
Nevertheless, your questioning attitude and perseverance were key to ensuring that thelicensee and staff fully evaluated the! implications of the Shoreline fault zone. Youcorrectlynoted that the seismic hazard should be evaluated for not only comparison of the groundmotion response spectra, but also the plant"s design and construction to ensurecontinued safe operation.
I understand that the in-structure motions calculations were not part of the basis for theoperability determination that was made in the October 2012 time frame. Nevertheless itwould appear to me that the EDO agrees that they should have been done. Based on the
Non Responsive
Non Responsive
From: Hill, Brittain
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 5:32 PMTo: Manoly, Kamal; Munson, CliffordCc, Ake, Jon; Li, Yong; Markley, Michael; Lupold, Timothy; Karas, Rebecca; Ross-Lee, MaryJane;Hiland, Patrick; Oesterle, Eric; Sebrosky, JosephSubject. Re: Proposed Questions to PG&E
Without the clarification on damping, we end up with the same confusing issues as 2 nonconcurrences, a DPO, the 2014 union Conc sci report, and recent petition by FOE. If damping
clarified, stops all this confusion in its tracks and gives clear basis for decisions. This is not a pureengineering exercise, and what you are portraying as "noise" is ano important consideration inclearly explaining why or why not we think DCPP is safe to operate. If there still are dissenting views,i suggest we discuss them at tomorrow's meeting before call.
Britt
Sent from Brittain Hill's PDA
From: Manoly, KamalSent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 04:58 PM Eastern Standard TimeTo: Hill, Brittain; Munson, CliffordCc: Ake, Jon; Li, Yong; Markley, Michael; Lupold, Timothy; Karas, Rebecca; Ross-Lee, MaryJane;Hiland, Patrick; Oesterle, Eric; Sebrosky, JosephSubject: RE: Proposed Questions to PG&E
I mentioned RG 1.61 to illustrate a point. I know from my involvement with Diablo since themid-eighties that the plant was licensed to damping values that are different from RG 1.61.I also knew that some components are governed by DDE and others by Hosgri. Fromdoing actual design of components in nuclear plants, designers know that somecomponents may be governed by OBE and others by SSE. Still, the argument aboutdamping should not be relevant to altering the evaluation done by PG&E in 2011 exceptfor the change of ground motion (old shoreline line vs. new shoreline hazard). That is theonly variable of significance, The rest is in the noise level from an engineering standpoint.
Kamal ManolySenior Level Technical Advisor for Structural Mechanics
Division of Engineering
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation301-415-2765
From: Hill, BrittainSent:. Wednesday, September 17, 2014 4:17 PMTo: Manoly, Kamal; Munson, CliffordCc: Ake, Jon; LI, Yong; Markley, Michael; Lupold, Timothy; Karas, Rebecca; Ross-Lee, MaryJane;Hiland, Patrick; Oesterle, Eric; Sebrosky, JosephSubject: Re: Proposed Questions to PG&E
Please read ch 2,3, and 5 in DCPP SAR to see that Hosgri is not limiting demand - can be either HE orDDE. PGE also didnt use RG 1.61 damping for all Cati SSCs. Please look at SAR for their mix. Unlessthey identify appropriate damping etc, we simply cannot state that new info is bounded by existinglic basis, If new Shoreline exceeds DDE, and DDE is the SSE and limiting GM (NOT Hosgri!) for someSSCs, we certainly need PGE to state what damping is appropriate for new info: DDE, HE, RG1.61, or
something else.Britt
Sent from Brittain Hill's PDA
w(b)(6)From: Manoly, KamalSent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 04:06 PM Eastern Standard TimeTo: Munson, CliffordCc: Ake, Jon; Hill, Brittain; Li, Yong; Markley, Michael; Lupold, Timothy; Karas, Rebecca; Ross-Lee,MaryJane; Hiland, Patrick; Oesterle, Eric; Sebrosky, JosephSubject: Proposed Questions to PG&E
Cliff,
I see no relevance or value from asking PG&E question #5 about "In-structuremotions (different damping values & appropriate comparisons)". The sole focusshould be on confirming that PG&E new shoreline fault ground motion estimate isreasonable and acceptable to the staff. With such confirmation, then, the hazard fromthe shoreline fault would be bounded by the "Old" Hosgri. That should be the endpoint of our assessment of the CA report.
Introducing a question as to whether the damping values to be used for the 2014hazard estimate of the shoreline fault may be different from that used in the 2011evaluation would be pointless and shifting the focus to a totally unrelated issue. Youwill never find any documented reference that correlates slight change in hazard vsdamping values for structural materials. Remember, in RG 1.61 we prescribe (for aspecific structural material) a single damping value to be used by ALL plants in theUS for OBEs and another for ALL SSEs regardless of the location. The reason isbased on acceptable understanding that viscous structural damping would generallybe lower at lower deformation level. We know that ground motion estimates for OBEsand SSEs vary greatly from low seismic regions such as the Gulf States vs. highseismic regions such as CA. For this reasoning, asking the question about the effectof different damping values on in-structural response due to slight change in hazardwould be worthless and totally distracting from the central issue in the CA report.
Kamal Manoly
Senior Level Technical Advisor for Structural Mechanics
Division of Engineering
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
301-415-2765
* From: QTo:Cc: lud Ln.Jouise Wilson, GorSubject: Additional Q&As for Diablo CanyonDate: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:37:05 PMAttachments: ANTECIPATUD OUESTIONS AND ANSWERS DCPP.Eocx
Jeff,
I've incorporated Mike Markley's comments on the subject Q&As for EPW Hearing supportand have provided the updated responses.
ErrcR. Oe re4-WNRC Project Manager
Diablo Canyon Power Plant
Cooper Nuclear StationNRR/DORL/LPL4-1301-415-1014
h%, ••""•m4
ANTICIPATED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
DIABLO CANYON
Non Respornsilv
2. I(b)(•i)
3.
Non Resnonsive
Non ResponsivE
5.
Non ResponsiviE
From:To: Klett, AudreyCc Markley. Michael; Oesterle. Erc Wilson, GeomeSubject: thanks for developing TER shell for Diablo CanyonDate: Thursday, October 23, 2014 7:42:12 AMAttachments: Diablo Canyon o-erability evaluation 2014 seismic information technciat evaluation,doox
Path forward for Diablo operability assessment:.msa
Audrey,
The purpose of this email is to thank you for developing the outline for the Diablo Canyonseismic TER. I used it to develop the attached TER which was used as a strawman formanagement discussions yesterday. Attached is a summary of the outcome of themeeting. Although it looks like the attached TER is going to be heavily revised it did servea purpose as the basis for a starting point to get the ball rolling on the evaluation. It alsoappears to me that the general outline for the TER (which you developed) is going to beused.
I just thought you should know that I very much appreciated not having to start fromscratch on developing the TER and how I used what you developed.
Thanks again for the help.
Joe
From: Sebrosky, JosephSent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 8:10 AMTo: Wilson, George; Oesterle, Eric; Markley, MichaelSubject: info: latest version of Diablo Canyon TER
To all,
Attached is the latest version of the Diablo Canyon TER. It incorporates comments fromEric and has other minor editorial changes from previous versions. Per direction fromGeorge I have stopped work on the effort pending the outcome of the meeting later today.
Thanks,
Joe SebroskySenior Project ManagerJapan Lessons-Learned DivisionOffice of Nuclear Reactor RegulationJoseph.sebrosky~nrc.gov301-415-1132
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT BY THE OFFICES OF NEW REACTORS,RESEARCH, AND NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
CENTRAL COASTAL CALIFORNIA SEISMIC IMAGING PROJECTPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2October 21, 2014, 8:00 am version
(b?(5)
1
(0)(0
2
3
4
5
/t .....(b)(5 I
6
7
8.
9
(bV5)
10
(D)(5
11
12
Table 6-23
DIABLO CANYON STRUCTURE FRAGILITIES
(Based on hazard defined over 3 to 8.5 hertz range.)
Fundaamenta Spectral Accoleration CapacityFrequpncy x
Structure Hertz Failure Mode HCLPF (O)
Contalnment BudingConuete Internal StmrctureIntake StMnOuMAU,•t1 BuldingTurblne BuUding
R•fueling Weatu Storege TankCoadensa Storage TankDO ftel-Ofn Stornge TankAwdilv atwatu Piping
4.1 P xtedor Shell Sbeu
8.9 nternal Structure Shear23.3 North Wall Shee8.2 Northlouth Shgazwals8.6 Shen W&1, ColW= 319.0 Black Wall7.6 CoaeretefBedroek Pflac t- Compason io RWST
8.426.918.45
5.794.87
> 10.0
9.92>10.0
0.260.200.280.21
0.26
0.300.310.310.260.33
3.34
2.983.232.66
1.84
3.40
4.•5
0.29 0.36
Buried RuptarRupture
>10,0 - -
9.23 0.18 0.21
13
U
lb
IF*
.4 F
is'.
I!
Table 6-24
DIABLO CANYON EQUIPMENT FRAGILITIES(Basod on hazard dethned'over 3 to 1.S hemt rmea.)
(o1
8S falm and Comeene~ti Callo~n
Rester 9rettuse Vassal cbsuda~ma - (Lot*)haciter ltirmall Coatdatafm - (tar)Seasm Castrate Cmetuhumm 014P)freptucr cMouamafne 04140)Vrmmel.sr safely Valves cauiafeuas - (14r)?nwet Opertaed 5.11sf Valves 0.01shmsot - OWS)3eaecuc ahe CombtPal fltatettt - 0!v)4,cam, a" o Drives CeesItsmal (t (10*"m31 Ppiteg Co.teltautl - (14011
ani pump$ Aualllee (31)am3 no"4 Eitabagets Anxillmy (too.)
SoPmpa fl uTatAsufflar (73-1
,CCW huet. AW'Jut&I ('31)ccw ueta Sockespet Taux's (W)1CCW AWa Tea Ausslltavy (143-)
Coerglhs Pump (caawftsoag1 Asaultty (711)
cbartmil hept (,vctpuece) AWWWVcr (71))
6m 559 vALTWJL~f
Acaitlaty Saltwaftru tsms lattka Vi
CS fump. Ausillsy (721)Spa diieTaut Asuuitn~ (731)
PuindameniwalFrequency
11-1411an
7 RZ (to7-316 a00
7-fl Its (10
s-11 Ru (Hy)
13-3 Rx (a)
1-32 11 (if)
43 It: (U)
"3 att 01)
24 met M)
Method or StlamicQua1Itcat~n Pilure Mode
VotatmW Assitysis SWPparim5 SimrKijanwe ARAtII. Iaavre Caue PflauDysawi Amalpatt Vapne Lau"e SuppertDyparpi Aaaiyll Sata* 09"0 Sqipolt9Suck) Assfyofetva usarM peacticalSuite Aastrufestd~ MOWN, 1ub"Istme0"Waci Aaat"Is Lowtr Mewi StandGlavelto Anatole lkadMAdpir Tk~dDyaamfe Analysis Itimet
Viaemlc Ananlysis ramp Rold DownS SaltsStaIde Asamyata Anterw Selta A Kppr
"atent Suapport
Sack A"osayt Amcber Sleds
sulki Acalotst Ifap "aml Dows; ftltvStatc Avajlots Andeta 110,11
Static Analosts ramp Itoh Down saltsDy21nal = V.tyI. Ststakwael" Sisal Not,#Static Anabel.s Stlammi Laet" Uftom
Staic Aualysl. Motw Held Dow% WitlStatic ASAlysfS ftmp HOWd Doa Socls
SpectralAcIecradon Cpsact
Informatlon x) HCLFF
W Sumaly Data 80.71 0.25 0.33 2.14WStarma Data 10 14 040 3. .
F~aiammaktyDafa 4.94 Wt1 0.25t" 2.35Wx is y Del6 1t.44 0.11 0.44 3.212so". Mal05 310. - -so"11. 14401 7.42 0.31 0.42 21.2JOSS. b ,28. u429 i.r1 0.7 0.32 2.6)V Suumarr Vat.s 11.71 0.41 0.54 3.40W S•mmary Data 2,10.4 -
W Sumtt ,ay Dta 1.31 04)) 0.72 3.1$W Smamay Data, 1."1 0.24 0.21 3.41r4413. 474
De Sm ir Vm. 19.01 0."I 0.19 4.33W1,114 -
Ws•,1tIB1'y Doim 10,941 0.14 0.13 4.44W•Iate.me mIft. 8.44 0.21 0.19 3.16
M004. um0, )4318 1.53 0.19 0.11 1.14Mm01,514. I 447 4.11 0&27 0.2cm 2.45J2I319 7.32 0.13 0.32 2.0l
Wsenga'y Vate 10.16 0.11 0.11 4.41w' Stmma• y Olt. :10.0 -
m4oo0 A10.0 -
)WSVus ra Dats 8.45 0.29 0.20 3.41W 5mmary Diatl 4.711 D.A 0.10 1.07
Static Aftelo It
Static AnayisfrlStatic Analott
Pvast mouuntn colts
Foundation SaltsSappmt makiS~el
0a.
0.
-'5
14
UII
£2.
'U.1
11Ii
Table 6-24 (CoadInued)DIABLO CANYON EQUtP1I4ENT PRAGILMTES(Easad an hzevrd derfoed over 3 to 8.5 teftu range.)
systeM aGCmootL~t
so t.Ifillg Valve Otulm. enfAa*8*mn
Us Solelty Vuiwm AszWANY (940')US FOSYS Asl0ltk (1401)
AYW 1uap (3MOW Dii.. ARUfIMATy (0001ArW 11 , (I UtMtt DOhti) AmZOay (10')
0.0.L F~l on3 0" TinS 21051. (W5)Ma0. Nd01 ?ou pipatum Wdidsrgzoe vasl (77.)0.0. f.ia on Skls'sa vanv gaQgeas~d Weft C77120.0. Aft saun coupnamto 110M. MWI
DAN. Alt Slut 26colve Tutll (151'),keel (octoamlu Touiim 42r')D.C. MadlModVMut Vtp 1111law (01130.0. bai tt 5Ihroult Wilfr "b"11. (104q
P.A. C..MW t~kt91 TeAS. (AS'S.
0.0. Main* Load 12.mlool/o, TOW"1. (85'I)
0,otat'amve Vs. w CoSCasnabMeit (3401)
Sop~pt ft" AwaJIIary (1S4,41)AC UstauCattpitivio. Aua~i~ny S4
ComWeIU C fbti Aaal437 (1631)
B114mtt arnd &W.-011 Duampen Mxsma (1631)
Pundsmental-Frequency
Rlazlb 1b8go
.41 111a (1)
to MA (V)
26 MR 00I? H& (noultilbte V1pftis a&* (M1a ufs 01)
10 me (H)
13 NI (M1
M.othod otsf S.1mic4Quuaf~caltou
Dy"iius AUWWlhT4t
-ros -mlla~POrwnk~ Alaa~ssl.Ies
U91510 AttulyIaSMIll Aagyise~
SWStC 5.8*17.1smaile Asslys1iN...Oftlal Anaahxago 5.5.1014Dluawk AsazijstoOveasiak Aat~paD7.aosticA~ssbDyssonk AnslyellTOO3T.4
lIviSlativ A.8.al1
D2'wuak Asslysis
Paillor. Mods
AUMO 3(80 p .BeM
Pumo Kola0 DownM atto
Botto pustt RipleyeHit. ArAcitr ball.310.351 UoltHold DOW sollsa"1 Do"* salt1518 Atichor acheAanlo* fa111mgWilies, Suftrnt god Welds10acftrn.01stst
shutmoomlAno.heMz-WWft Weld
PCOt PIzA119101ed. Wgtd
sup""t 3soiuaAscht NM4Isveusalui
tntortnatiosiSource
AcveSpeoOalAcollan~t Capacity
.L2LHCLPF
U5067. M463. 51461 MO1.0
US"8 2410.0
55105 240.0165". Null1 1.71
M133 >.10.01134. U132 8.31veto ban O.11132.0.Uny2 2.50.01(42)5414 7.10miss) 8.78M1111. 34441 A41.01(54. L0344 1.4010124. U3)44, 1494. .711(482
4.3160(1321.
10M* 1"911. M0410. alsoM1421. 1444
MOSIS 1.7115M8. wi31 ola.011455 M61.0
0.3 0.38,
0.27
0.3*
0.30
0.200.24
8.14
0.13
3.35
4084
L24
2.•82
1-12
0.21 0.11
0.31 0.243,33 HEz (K) Sluk Asatyst11:01) liz (34) S94lut.5..1 s321 He* 00 Tell
:133 I. (o) Stad. Aat ylpuSteaf Aahlysit
**x**.ton Arnabr bol10smsuhtfil lost
51.34 0.31I 0.30 3.$S•2.10.0 - - a,
,,o
15
Sysiem and Component Location
swickle" rojm 1" 01111 ~r
Table 6-Z4 (Ccmttiutd)DIABLO CANYON EQUIPMENT FRtAGIL4TIES(Based on hazard dtiltned ever 3 to 9.3 horts rancti.) 4,
a,
Fundamental Method of Seismic
IAccelerainCpacIty
FaiureInformation Z CL.PFFailur__ Sure Mods5 IL som k IlPt -L (R)
F4,1'atal Treaa lrm a. CPU$F
tant a& IQ~
galtqnl RMaa ftaml
wtttbpaMe"Mk 1:12101
Ia~matrRe
slaynla Palsy trito
Main Coutma "eatd,
not1 stuwowu Pauli
A4911161V eatkgw~f* ablaaI
Twist" (III-)
vartS. (1111
A"WaI6y PIS-)
Aaaak Pts-)
Auoistaly 0(l.)
MAegftt PIS-)
AW01111y 0001Aazdiil (100')
Aux"tll (140*)
Aiwfllui (too0)
AMRS111 (IU*I
7 us* 10
2S Hz (M)
it SIX (10
"S1 SIX (to
12 111 MN
711 z(100
3,2 oft On1
Tell
Staga As"Vats
Static Andypi.
smtalf Abtist"J
Tat
rut
ttadv A414tpb
ran
0aws Rod Usauttag
Sappan Lesizab.
WINAschar Wte&&
It"Iostat
lo4v4. us$$. 1435. S.0)us?$!. 1417?..5n 7.441668110149. M4371 W1441. WAS8K4451,05 47,1641. SI 41. 710.0144501422. 31073. 16404. ec.1IM440
01110, 1U014. 1U344 41.0414a1l. U1402. 1010G. 11.111M242714014, W)64, Ma4ss. *.IS1011"I3141114. 100111. 1434 4.47
0.3$ 0.2S
0.1o 0.1,
0.14 0.36
0,.70 o, 1a
0.26 0.12
0.14 0.40
O.JS 0.21
0.11 0.14
0.26 0.20
I'll2.01S
3.47
3.39
2.74
9.40
2.16
2,45
1.41
2j;l
7.213.71
21AP-Hat Paftit 1081A 210.6Itrenat.) 1401. 040%4. was7. 6.83
16411. 14416, MSt.31U4467
a
somtrestAsctler SlultS Weld111161ua1
switch Ittento
Switch FbEnda"
1513. Waadw S.3413,017. 14764 7,10.0hIol. U1464 1.21
5"WrAw yawp nt , ma0.W 6456. 1441 7.1740317. 0047). 01342. 1.401447*, 441 7.2171WI7. d11.13 0S$9 •ia.*0
DyOpaa Aastsela
SaeAnatv"is1413 Nas CHI Toml
0.310-310.10
0.270.27S0.8,1
0~
16
U
I
Table 6-14 (Corntbwned)DIABLO CANYON PQUWMfEI4T IRAGILfl1ES(Based on harnard deffned over 3 to 8.5 hertz rants.)
Speltfo
Fundamental MtAbiod of Seismic iZnformation 1CL1Lilcadfof PS'0Q320cy Q"WIfficstta" Failure Mo~de Seaurvt, ( .. 2 .
Aaetuai OW) Ir-30of 30* 3 Tellittwa 3685?. 305% 30.70 0.1f 4.25 3.3?AMAX1111 03409 5-11 us00 3 Tat )aw1r138? 0317 1m1.43 0.37 0.35 4.130ai11pC~) V 00 ast Stracjiul bull, 11554 1.as 0.38 6.111 3.14ASXiy (0401) Na ~. Tom 24ciu :~ 2.30,Ckttaolslu (117') 233 on 13 Ten URIccus S04 .9 0.113 Q.10 4.11
&Sisrtp and Conapogent
Brawn, Caaw" "4 em'mralftslaoSauid simsPrt. ecting 2#84cm
lainsAM & Tempamutu DowalonIfasans & Alp w1mnIaters
tam3 scan BombMaotied Cas O3"it lbtalag"tallp13 Suttin"
Ott-Wit rower 2349V
used, Battlef sousuCE, a cbkckVVW rnAir and Kalov 09.talld Valt..CAU1 Trmo and sappostsRVAC BW.Xlus call XqapbM
Axa~llf-7 (Vitis*)
coalawoasta (YwAricut)
COtflaanta 41131)
vat*".
32.20 Iu 0313".3 a (in)
"I1 Its ("lV)
tA 31*(33PlgeAtd NEODSFlexible fiplug
11aAgt, "1Pinl1,x~i TrI"FPjleae Vocting
stalfn AnalyticTan
TontNo".041110 Analtic
Man.
TV"Dynamic AasltrikDynmaicl Amilroib
Dynamic LAnlpklsaitic AIIsailStitl, AMMihi
Amber DeltaStzaWQaStusarawl0arnal. P33aimale201=u0 Prem ImpactActaalo AoacAL. Dolls
(kamano Pastfnr
000"10 softamllOeagte SjapmtnGeawi frtetleft
64awle Prattle,Crawils 5159t"(resewt Support
loll?. miss. W339has#mod71044Data Urn,31433
Date "Ma
31354W"*2. 33351VMSta Boa
806?. 854f1woq,-wllW314-b3315
:#10.02110102411.0
1.60
0,94
0,40CO.J0.33
0.300.503317
0.10
0.00
2.63
0.56.29
2.933.M
347
2.4f
0~3
ii
17
I PG&E Single. Station'sigma Approach
1.5 1----Hosgri
-Los Osos
-San Luis Bay
11 -Shorefine
- -Shoreine- Hosgri Linked
-- Design
0.1 1 10 100
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 1 - Deterministic Response Spectrum Single Station Approach
(b)(5:
18
From: Oesterle, EricSent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:55 PMTo: Wilson, GeorgeCc: Alexander, Ryan; Walker, Wayne; Sebrosky, Joseph; Markley, MichaelSubject: Path forward for Diablo operability assessment
George,
As you know, members of NRO/DSEA and NRR/DE met this afternoon to discuss a proposed pathforward. Everyone agreed that there is no immediate safety concern and that whatever approach we take onlyneeds to be able to provide reasonable assurance until the NRC completes its review of the 50.54(f) responsefollowing the March 2015 submittal. The 50.54(f) response will still be the information that NRC ultimatelyhangs its hat on with respect to additional actions, if necessary, because it is expected to provide moreaccurate information.
The proposal from Nilesh Chokshi was to allow staff to consider all available and recognized methodologies forassessing response and not be limited to either single station correction (SSC) or Ergodic. This would alsoallow the staff to take into account knowledge gained from assessments of CEUS plants and develop a sort ofaveraged approach between SSC and Ergodic. The seismologists are on board with this approach and in facthad even considered at one point previously. This approach would result in curves that would tend to fall moreto the right of the PG&E developed SSC curves and more to the left of the NRC back-calculated Ergodiccurves. The resultant curves would be compared against Hosgri and also LTSP, if needed, and would factor insome qualitative discussions about fragility and capacity that were included in SSER 34. Everyone was inagreement with Nilesh's approach. Kamal was OK with it if the results still showed that the new curves were ator below Hosgri.
It was agreed that we need to get Region IV on board with this approach before we brief it to Jennifer. I amproviding this email to Ryan Alexander and Wayne Walker as well.
Er-cR. Oe-4tireNRC Project ManagerDiablo Canyon Power PlantCooper Nuclear StationNRR/DORL/LPL4-1301-415-1014
tý,.4w
1
From: Ge2elI.1IdTo: Sr.=. MichaelCc: Pedersen. Renee: WiLsonGere Marklev. Michael: Br iJ2.jogSUbject: RE: Now AskManagement SubmissionDate. Monday, November 10, 2014 8:20:05 AMAttachments: Mini-Comm Plan on DCPP DPO final.docx
Mike,
We prepared a mini Comm-plan associated with the EDO Decision on the Appeal of the DPO (seeattached) and the release of the DPO Case file for public availability. Perhaps the attached will addressthe question. Like Mike Markley indicated, there is no indication that we will be responding directly tothe 9/19 article.
Eric R. OestedeNRC Project ManagerDiablo Canyon Power PlantCooper Nuclear StationNRR/DORL/LPL4-1301-415-1014
-----Original Message-----From: Markley, MichaelSent: Monday, November 10, 2014 8:10 AMTo: Scott, Michael; Broaddus, DougCc: Oesterle, Eric; Pedersen, Renee; Wilson, GeorgeSubject: RE: New AskManagement Submission
Mike,
We had all kinds of stuff going at the time of the DPO Director's Decision and EDO Appeal. The DCPPPM, Eric Oesterle can provide you with the information subject to our communications plan, but OEowns the DPO process. Rene Pedersen would be the right person to discuss the DPO. I do not believethere is a Sharepoint link.
There were a lot of articles. Some making assertions about how the DPO was handled and timing. Wehave referred some to the OIG. In DCPP space, September 19 is a long time ago. We are respondingto about 10 DCPP Congressional/concerned citizen items right now. I will have the PM, Eric Oesterletake a look, but my guess is we are not responding explicitly to the September 19 article.
Mike
-----Original Message -----From: Scott, MichaelSent: Friday, November 07, 2014 5:42 PMTo: Markley, Michael; Broaddus, DougSubject: FW: New AskManagement Submission
Gentlemen:
Can whichever of you has cognizance of Diablo Canyon please help me out? Can you please ask the PMto send me a link to a Sharepoint site or wherever else that we have compiled information on the DiabloCanyon seismic DPO and the Agency's review and response to it? The below question was submitted
anonymously by someone on the Region I staff, I would like to answer it with a simple link to whereverthe info can be found, if such a link exists.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Michael (Mike) ScottDeputy DirectorDivision of Reactor ProjectsRegion I(610) 337-5126
-----Original Message -----From: [email protected] [mailto:r1askmanagement(•nrc.gov)Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 7:29 AMTo: RIASKMANAGEMENT RESOURCESubject: New AskManagement Submission
On September 19, The Santa Barbara Independent ran an article, which was also put on the Riwebsite, about the former Diablo Canyon SRI who had a concern about how Diablo Canyon's newseismic information was handled and did not feel that Is DPO about this concern was adequatelyaddressed. Does the NRC plan to do anything additional to address his concern in light of the recentarticle? If so, please inform us of the resolution to this when It is concluded.
-OFfICAL USE ONLY-SENSITIVE INTERNAL INFORMATION - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Communications Plan -Diablo Canyon Power Plant Topics of Interest
Differing Professional Opinion and Appeal
(b)(5
OWFFICiALAP4E IJNLY-ADI mltldm fw Dil•n•i m i ISENSITIVE INTRu NALj~ ijirORuM,~AHO--Kn .irtr rzLIV ELLLASi
OF.'CL•, .USE.ONLY RRSENSITIVE INTERNAL INFO-RMATION NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
(b)(5'
OFFIGIAL USE ONLY.SENSITIVE INTERNAL IN FORMATON - NO *OR PUBIic RELEASE
OFFCIL SEON'V-YSENStI'!E- MUTRNAL INFORM.ATION ---NOT FOR PUSLMIZ ELEASE
OFFICIAL USE ONLYSIENSIITIVE INTERNAL INFORMATION NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
From: Qestere. EricTo: ,ebrk. h Marklev. Michael; Lupold, Timo:hy Wilson. George
Cc: Karas. RebeccaSubject: Final Briefing SlidesDate: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 10:04:17 AMAttachments: Final Diablo Canyon Seismic Status Briefina 210ct2014.ootx
imaoeQQi.Dn!3
Attached are the finalized briefing slides for the 11AM briefing. Thanks everyone for yourinputs!
Ertc R, Oegterle
NRC Project ManagerDiablo Canyon Power PlantCooper Nuclear StationNRR/DORL/LPL4-1301-415-1014
a,,
SU.S.NRC
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Protecting People and the Environment
Assessment ofPG&E Operability Determination
forNew Seismic Information
NRR, NRO and Region IV Status Briefing
October 21, 2014
Contacts: J. Sebrosky (NRR/JLD), T. Lupold (NRR/DE), R. Alexander (RIV), W. Walker (RIV),M. Markley (NRR/DORL), and E. Oesterle (NRR/DORL)
1
r U.S.NRCUnited Satec Nuclear Regulatory Commi.sitm
Protecting People and the Environment
Briefing Agenda
0
0
0
0
0
0
0Non Responsivi
• Decisional Environment
2
rl U.S.NRCUnited Stmtecs Nudcar Regolazory C(snmisioni
Protecting People and the Environment
Non Responsive
3
--U.S.NRCUnited S.jics Nticlear ,cgulhnry (ommissiIn
Protecting People and the Environment
Non Responsi,
4
United Staics Nudlea Rctgulatroe (nnrnsision
Protecting People and the Environment
Non Responsilcl
5
kljvU.S.NRC-SUnhcd t Nxiskv Rcepuhcory Commnission
Protecting People and the Environment
Non Responsmv
6
e<ki U.S.NRCUn~ited Stato Nudclr.Regutr I Guvn (4mkýiia
Protecting People and tbe Entdronmient
Non Responsive
7
(I<U.S.NRCUnited S•tate- Nttlce.ir Rcgulatory Commission
Protecting People and the Environment
Non ResponsIvc
8
r'U.S.NRCUnited States Nuclear Rcgulmiorv Commkision
Protecting People and the Environment
Non Responsivw
9
(-<-U.S.NRCU nited State Nuceao~r Rtgtlxjttory C(tirtrui-ioin
f'rtecdwig Peopis' and tbe EnvironIMent
Non Responsmv
10
< U.S.NRC1n SttctlNoes Nunclear Regulatory (Commnision
Protecting People and the Environment
Non Responsmw
11
•< U.S.NRCUnjited Stfes Nuclear Rrgularory Co:mmi.siodn
Protecting People and the Environment
Non ResponsIVE
12
r.i U.S.NRCUnized StJtes Nuclear Regulatory (i'mnitjsiorn
Protecting People and the Environment
Non Responsive
13
(j US.NRCUnitcd States NucIktr Regultd ,ry (2ornmissirin
Protecting People and the Environment
Non Rosponsiw
14
rtUS.NRCUiitcd State,. Nuclear Iegpilaroty Commission
Protecting Peopk and the Enfirorment
Non Responsivt
15
e<2'<ýU.S.NRCUnitd Swe Nucle\~dar Regail atoy (Cosnmis~ia
Protecting People and the Environment
Decisional Environment
0
Non Responsive
• FOIA - timing of PG&E issuance of seismic report andNRC EDO decision on DPO appeal
0I
Non Responsive
Leak of DPO and publication in PressNon Responsive
• December 2014 Hearings - Senate & House
16
From: SebrosKt JosenlTO. Wilson, Geoe ihe: QOstede EricSubject; FW: info: rough draft of DCPP seismic evaluationDate: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:50:12 AMAttachments. Dablo CanVon operabflitv evaluation 2014 seismic information technoal evaluation~docx
imacme001 pn
George, Mike and Eric
The purpose of this email is to ask for help from people who understand seismic margins better thanme on whether or not the attached technical evaluation should include references to how SSER 34confirmatory items were resolved, and the HCLPF values found in PG&E's IPEEE submittal. Thereferences are provided below, Any insights on whether or not this information should also beincluded would be appreciated - thanks joe
4/17/92 letter ML1 4279A1 32 Is publicly available.
View ADAMS P8 Properties ML 14279A132Onen ADAMS P8 Documnent IForwards Safety Evaluation Closing Out Plant Long-Term Seismic Progjam StaffFinds That Confirm-atory Item From SSER 34 Has Been Satisfactorily Resolved,)
I am also not sure if the IPEEE HCLPF values should be included in the discussion. The IPEEE can be found at:View ADAMS P8 Properties ML073600371Open ADAMS P8 Document (Diablo Canyon Units I & 2. Response to Generic Letter 88-20.Supplement 4. "Individual Plant Examination of External Events for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities.")
The IPEEE contains HCLPF values for Component and Structures. Below is an example table from the IPEEE
Table 3-8. IDCPP Component and Structure Fragility and HCLPF Values
RISKMAN Daeviptotwn medan I 4CLPF sets set Fueer Made wodt 1) Acct(q) R U Source of Ftmgolty
3810 ONTAPIMP1 SUILIW44 ".2 3m 0.38 0.30 Carceig cve1l u W1w
FU&BS'Tf CokemCUTE m7XML 910STRUCTIJRE 6,01 2W0 0.20 0.31 S~SG" wa st ohmCFO68000ed tOPSwwv& 6149t
2wUO TAKt SThgcTUM ae. 234 oa" 011 M~w. -20 ol. akme poy
AURX.ARVW SUPU4 5,79 2AT ".1 0.28 1Warmsokok ~ we few
?T8Si4 ItM*OJ StJGfllDtO WEAR WViL 447 1 v 0.24 043 Stew was a .draw 31 01g.
ho55timA twai ItmS I*k
ZfiifMV AtACTR00P8S4)Al VISMI 7 3.38 0.4% 0.2 tie hmog, mm of co0maO.
ftWlIIATOI) OfTERMPALS 1)142 4.04 0.40 0.73 ClAD.# of Iste, oev V9oW9 c~o~orq 0eo~etr
ZSTMG7I M1AM CMEPATOR 1.20 2.83 0 21 0,30 hlw 01.Ym ov ~O Gr_____________b~ms. semesero. LocA.
2PORA #Ovvm OFATED rV4#Y ALVES 142 *2-2 020 0,42 #w% 4a . bwm",
7ncpM RftACTOft COOLANT PSI4WS £9,2 2.33 0137 9,23 [Ao..... mod 664k._____________LOCA.
Ma02%*f ,1 3.36i 0.3) "2 pbaffs to hirwier. we hdi%.
zRiw 14f SEAT £XCNGM4GR 909 34 026 q027 Imake seo0 elsarg 0
ZOCCP cmW PUMP 9 43 3.74 0.21 0il Loo of w.s~ tutevjn OW a
2CCW4X CCW#4tAT VCwMkFS fit 1.66 ell 0.29 Le b-b6IM. 1g g w CCW0
ZCCWTX CCW 54*01 TOME 413 3176 0.33 0.22 Low C l,#; ISM SW 0081
ZCSPMP COUTAMdAW W~fAY PUMPS 6,00 248 0219 021. LW MW. IVw Of COWlt.
UPA76 IPPY AcwtiV TOML 076 307 0.30 0.14 Low of Dwoms441 wo
*M1GM LW WIMPS 61Aw fvUvP' 74 3-3 CL"02 0121 LO9W br~d. so" of twe436I
301U 04 fIm2 OIL PUMPSftI~flf 9.33 3AS 0oil 0.33 two W96%. 4Mg orwsva.
ZDSLON 0688K 14. 0N"#A702 7,7 3e6 0.21 017 28 'ý to&. 00441ws
30wv4p DG P.AMAOAL0WATIM PIAWS 1.78 SAS 0.20 044 imo~ eowM. kas of coofir..*wVI .sL
Z03XC Do ExviATIOW CUSICAL 7A4 2697 0-29 0.AK Fqiwqto funrws
zoacnt 00 CON#740L PANEL 4.8 2.24 0.30 0.13 Fea*w to hmfesw
From: Sebrosky, JosephSent: Monday, October 20, 2014 8:55 PMTo: Oesterle, Eric; Wilson, George; Markley, MichaelSubject: info: rough draft of DCPP seismic evaluation
George, Mike, and Eric,
Attached is a very rough draft of the Technical Evaluation of the 2014 California CoastalCommission Seismic Imaging Project for DCPP Units 1 and 2. It is a very rough draft which Ericand I intend to develop further in the morning. We hope to have a more refined product to you by9:00 am.
Please let me know if you have any questions on the approach.
Thanks,
Joe
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT BY THE OFFICES OF NEW REACTORS,RESEARCH, AND NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
CENTRAL COASTAL CALIFORNIA SEISMIC IMAGING PROJECTPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT, UNITS I AND 2October 20, 2014, 6:00 pm version
(b)(5)
1
2
(b)(5)
3
Cb)(S~
4
(b)(5'
5
6
7
b k\fr)'I I
8
•,,oIt. A. II
9
(MV5I
10
11
(b)(5
12
Table 6-23
DIABLO CANYON STRUCTURE FRAGILITIES
(Based on hazard defined over 3 to 8.5 hertz range.)
Fundamental Spectral Accoleration CapacityFrequency X
Structure Hertz Failure Mode S () O HCLPF (g)
Containvient BunftigConcrete Internal Structuretnta~kt StructureAwdilaxy BuildingTurbine Building
RefuIeling Water Storage TankCondensate Storage TankDO Fbel-Oil Storage TankAuxiliary Saltwater Piping
4.1 Exterfor Shell Shear
8.9 Internal Structure Shear
23.3 North Wall Shear8.2 North/South Shearwalls
8.6 Shear Wail, Column 31
9.0 Block Wall7.6 ConcretelBedrock Flexure- Comparison to RWST
Buried RuptureBuried Rupture
8.426.918.5$5.794.87
>10.09.92
0,260.200.280.210.26
0.29
0.300.310.310.260.33
0.36
3.34
2.983.232.661.84
3.40
4.85
>10.0 - -
,.10,0 -- --
9.23 0.18 0.21
13
-u'I
Co
iU'aC)
= a.o -
'a-:* 0
Table 6-24
DIABLO CANYON EQUIPMENT FRAGILITIES(Based on hazard defined over 3 to 8.S hertz range.)
-Systemn and Component L.ocation
Reactor rboume Vassal canlalamoan - (10?')Reactorc lalecatli Conainmalent - (1071Stcanx Gecratalra coaualaweal - (140*1I'axrwtfrt Coantsamalt - (140')Presutclecr Saetly Va1vtx Caateltuagat - (16V)rower Operated Relief Valves C-taloaxeoz - (1491'Reactor Coolant Pumops conainelont - (114')Conroirl 110d ODres conalalrsual 0(140)NSSS piping Containment - (140')
RESIDUAL HaAr PPI4OVAL
ARPumps Auxlliary (S0')
Win Next RExheatief Atuzilary (1001)
SI Accumllatall coalalonovat (911)
St Pups Auxiliay (83')Doran Ine.cdlop Took A-11lle" (731)
.CCW tPumps Auxil~ary (73')CCW lit"e! xchangers Turbine (051CCW Surge Tank Auxillaty (1631)
C~harging Pumpao (centrilatat) Auxiliary (73')charging Pumps (redipraocr) Auxiliary (73')
Auxiliary Saltwater Pumps Inalke (2'.2')
CS Pumps Auxiliary (3Spray Additive Tank Auxiliary (73')
Fundamnirtal Method of SeismicFrequency Qualification
32-34 Itz (it) Dynamic AnalysisI8-4 Heo (V) Dynanic Anaelysis9 lHz (10 Dynamic Azalysts.is Hez (10 Dysenamc felysaliFlextble VViing Static AuslystafTeuiFlexible Piping Static Analysisnota7 lit (H8) Dyeaanle Attatyall7-16 liz (ai) Dynamtc Analysts7-9 31z (l&V) Dynamic Anslyets
Flexlble Piping DyasralO Analysis12 liz. (H) Static AnalyzE.
23-34 lKa (IH)
>33s Its (11)
115-1 lit (it)
Flexlblq Piping11 He (11)S132 ux U)
>33 SEX (M0>33 Hez (HI)
43 Hz (Hi)
>3) Its (R)24 itz (1)
Static Analysts
Static Analyata
Static AnalysltDynamic Analyala
$;&(tc Anaolysts
Stalti AaalysisStaic A0alyse
Stalic Analyti1
Static AnalylitStatic Analysts
Failure Mode
Suppori Pla ShaerLower Came PlatoUpper LAtI"l SupportSeismic Supporl L•gGeneric FnctlionOcaiic PuhastiuxLower Motor Stand.lied A44pize YtildRupture
Pump Held Down BedtaA.chor aflta & tipperLateral Support
Aachor Studs
Pump Hold Down BaetsAnchor Bolto
Pump Held Down SokU
Longitudinal Sruni BoltlSelsant Lateral grace
Motor Hold Down salts
PUmp Held Down Blolt
pump Mounting Bolts
Foundatilon 8ll0Support Pedishell
SpectralAcceleration Capacity
Information I HCLPFSource - SA) OR. ., (a)
W Summary Date 9.71 0.7Z 0.33 1.34Esumwory Datl 10.54 0.40 0.25 3.55a 8ntmnazy DAl 6.96 0.31 0.29 2.51W Seminry Datia 11.46 0.31 0.44 3.33W397, M340 >10.0 - - -in"o. 16401 7.62 0."0 0-42 5.32W351. H4211. 429 8.82 0.37 0.32 1.83
"SainiMMMY Dale 11.71 0.4t 0.14 3.40
Saummary Data >10.0 -
Sunmmary Data 8.11 0.31 0.2 3.35WSummary Datl, 8.0 0.24 0.27 3.43M461. W474
W Summary Dale. 10.01 0.29 0.19 4.53r_316W Summoaay Dart 10.94 0.34 0.3I 4.94WSammanrs Data 8."6 0.27 0.19 3.98
t006. M ,007. WI8 8.53 0.29 0,21" 3.14M00S, U336, 2475 6.31 0.27 O0Z8 2.55U319 7.22 0.-3 0.M 2.91
Wsunmmary Date 10.16 0.31 0.18 4.45WSumeeary Doat >10.0 -
meow0 >t0.0 -
A Su•mare, Dole 8.65 0.29 0.20 3.81W Summary Dal. 6.78 0.30 0.18 3.01
14
U.3
C.
-a
Table 6-24 (Continued)
DIABLO CANYON EQUIPMENT FRAGILITIES(Binsed on hazard defined over 3 to 8.5 hertz range.)
Fundamental Mvethod of SelomicLocat ion .Firequoncy - Qualificatlion
SpectralAcceleration Capacity
Information yHCL1PPSoure 5(s)0 0 (it)System and Co ponent
UNNIscelaeVle
MS Isolatio Valve$
US Saftyv'8vt
AFW POOP. 0190a" 00"0onAM Putups (lbzblew Drivns)
0.0. Pool Oil Day TackD.G. PunI Off PUMsPIaeeM0.0. Is"! Oil Shutort ValveD.G. Alt Stani Causprnlsoz0.0. AlfSa Miuc ReneuaDieWn GeneratorsD.0, RadiatnclWslerf Pump0.G. Inlet SileacsslAir Riot0.0. 8Exctation Cubical0.M. Control pane
M.0. Vo1te Loot Termanln~Iost
Containmeet Pon Ceonte
supply Pans,AC Vanlsis*Ceouptelor,cenleol Cabineu.
Patluro Mode
Ac~tuato SUpport
Genneric FunctionOnneacti FUmctqn
Outside Conatlinmtal p1nidblo piping
Auxillas (1401) Flexible PiplosAuslilt~y (140') Flexible piping
Auxwlxry (lCOW)
nu~itflC (as')Uodoereunod Vault (771)Un4egotsail~ Vault C771)'iwbtua (SP')Turitene (01')Turbine (81')Turbine (851)Tultelae (1041)Turbinec (W5)iburbina (851)
Turbine (WS)
Canisdamntno (1w')
Awdillary EIS41-6")Auxiliary (134'-61Ausillan, (357')
TIOl
Auxiliary (1361)Auxiliary (163')
.42 Fix (Ito43 112 (it)
to Hit (1')Flexible PipingFlexible Piping>33 liz (Hi)" III (to17 na: CIS)17 liz (10)Flexible iping;1FIX 3(HCl)a Hz (11)
to lii (if)
23 Hz 01)
313 liZ (H).3)3 li (H1)
2318 (lizi
ý303 UZ (Ht)>30 lix (1t)
Dynsmin Avenaiyiluti
lDynnmlo Azlyalttrhel
D"camle ilwulrlsfrsll
Sizilc Analysis
Static Analysis
Static AnalysisNonle eylGcood n itl AayiDenerto Analystsg nayi
Dyonamic AnalysisDynamic AnalysisDynamic AnalysisTrestTest
TestStaills Analysis
Dynansle Analysis
Sladec AnalysiStatic AnalysisTeti
Static AnalysisStaic Analysis
1406". 14463. 14469 >3).0 .
1]9?7 310.0 -1,587 11.$I 0.34 0.38
Pump MIolt Down Rohs US.OAPump Hold Down ]molt W.420. 14321
>10.0 - -7.71 0.29 0.21
Balioan l1ieu SepitumFilier Anchsor SuitsFu~sible Link)told Dow* foths"oid Down. DellsSkid Anulsor DothtAsonbr aDltict&Fililg support Red WcldStructumalCbsitcr
StructuralAttachmeai-Fllnt Weld
M1323 3.30.0 - -
M324, b1326 8.33 0,17 0.27Dwia SDaem 2,0.0 - -
3243 • >10.0 - -
1M329 MI0.0 - -1421-M4426 7.79 0.16 0.201.323 6.70 0.29 0.24M271. M449 0.1.0 - -
MM346. U1364 1.40 0.29 C.I5W4347. M364. U464. 7.77 0.21 A.14
4.5• 0.30 0.131U434 010.0
]1.51
3.6531.64
2.57
4.08
2.24
2.83
3.12
Foot PlitelEmbed. Weld 1U399. U4499, M4424. 8.30 0.31 0.3131U421, M448
all0
$uppoit BOciling 140.6Anchor Ball Mug81Stsmniural 1.4455
Expraniont Anckat M1410Structural MIE8R
9.79 0.13 0.24.M32 -10.0 -
0.10.0
Supplyfacinmn FeelB~nkd~ati and Shut-ofl Dampers
11.16 0.33 0.100l.10. --
15
m
Systemn and Compo~nenmt
. _4140V MAAIO 2?WX9M pW 9R
Potential Tlasfoouolf 0414 P)
(Bus a & H)
Sarnusved Babuy pane
Table 6-24 (Contfnued)
DIABLO CANYON EQUIPMENT FRAGILITIES(Based on hazard defined over 3 to 8.5 hertz range.)
. SpectralAcceleration Capacity
Information 11 11CLPFý Surc 56s8 () PitPR
Fundzimental Method of SesmicFrequency QualificationlLocatton
Turbine (119')
Turbine (lir)
TZrblar.(1lP)
Tubinte (339')
sonth? chailmgu
Switcbpulrareker Plants
It' 2aC FLECTRIC 901359
lantuanamt Breaker Panels
414OV1480V Tramilor99fgreater Cebtoela %L44 Camralt)Awluxttyi Relay Panel
main czamtral booooda
not Shuttdown aFnel
Auxiliary S~ctearthd Cabinet
AmilltuzY (ITS')Auxiliary als.)
A"Ittory (135')
AuzrnIty ft S')
Auxi~lay (101'Auxtultuy OW25)
Auzllaly DtOW)MAutluay (H00')
Aouztttaly (t40')
AlsataloY (100')
Aztlktly 03211)
I Hm (H)
31 its (It)
is HR (t)
It3 ift (m)
>33 tit all
12 Ht (1)
:.20 Hts (H)
13 lit (H029 UK1 (H)
Static Avalyodv
Slaide Azolytt
Slatlo Aft~ltyst
Static AndIuol
Static Aitatyat
Static Analyat;Static Analysis
Iiyntnic Ajtlyal
Stati Awuyll.
Failure Mode
OudoiRoilPndn
Suppoort Legliatted.Waldll."art Zag1-totsd.*weld
SloacatralEooolztotlnal BudRestraintSwtrutural
Structlaral
Slip-flat FaiblurSinetobw,
StructuralAnchor S~tetb WeldStructural
Switch FunctionStructuralSwatch ftaltion
Structural
10349. WItS. MIS6. 3.5)m"l, mm.l-330. 7.44
U(0491. HItS, M414. 10.93
U049. WISl. WKS1, >19.0U6454M1432. WIS7. M4154. 10.7614430
UPS*0, U0$tA. 1(044 6.04MIS.1 W302. 11850. 11.91
1(054. U.364. 16433. 9.931(462U(014, MOSt. 336.4 6.67
IOOSIA :40,18U1235. MOW1. 1*355, .6.51X1(3. U43,5. I(45t."(467
M652?. Walkdown 5.34M(017. 14364 :110.0U315. 1(364 7.25
'WSwutmsl Data. :40A0U456. 1(402 7.77WIT,? MISS, U1342. 7.601(471. U4t2 7.27MIT. W634. 1,4159 310,0
0.350.31
0.311
0.25
0.31
0.314 0.26
2.31
3,4.
Jý 39
0.,00.26
0.34
0.L.
0.190.22
0.40
0.29
0.31 0.Z4
2.745.00
2.93
2.36
2.10
2.47
W -V
.. 4
3 UP
0.26
0.26
0.310.270.30
0.200.250.t4
>'33 tHz (
>31 lau(t
2.933.223.52
9-13HlZ (1) Tetel! 'UIt00(I0~.
0
16
U
a Sys~tem end Component L[cation
Table 6-24 (Continued)
DIABLO CANYON EQUIPMENT FRAGILITIES(Based on hazard defined over 3 to O.S hertz range.)
Fundamental Method of SeismicFrequency Qualification
SpectralAcceleration Capacity
Irnormation a " CLPF.Failure Mode Source , (a) 0 (
9
true*" Otatrel and Protection System Aw4Ilrjr (1214)solid Sltat Itosettlo Syutem A"Illtay (IIA0)lkisomo Trip Switebteecr A-airluy 011S')11eshlson,0 & 79OCIseAMM* Defteclur Anxillaty 0140')
trewasr &. AP Tratislatnia 41taotalamrat (II?')
Anotmliay Ralay Back AexIltary (128*)tocal Starte outdoiriuktieded Ck"~ Circuit flcoskorn Aoxilflha (1151)Vatve uitaI Switzieso Aozfllarr (Vaimes)impulse lies Coeultmeot (yuleuCantatumoeui ?rgxe Valves C0Ootnacieol (1)1')
Ott-Site rower 2330V Yard554KV
?eoeealsftetsflo ao*i Conainlment (1351180?, Piping and Support Various)limit Relief. Solentolt, & check VariousjVaetoeAir and Motor Opehal4 Valves VaioustCable Tral, and Smpperu VaidousItYAC Ducting and Support# Various
1)
A-10 Itz CF[)
>33 l1k (II)
1-33 Hez 01)
>133 liX WlV)
>33 li (1&V
Flexible Ppn
Flexible Piping
Firitible pipingflexible TrarysFletidble Ductins
TellTestTestTestTest
StructuralStruturoalStenicuralSteecleralStructural
MIT1. 14355 10.7611017. M3SS M26314317, 143SA 7.90L0435 0.
W4141 9
M317. MI1.5. 49>00U.454 0.18476 0.W4344 M10.0D~ata Base 7.0994432 M10.0
0.39 0.21 3.70.37 0.28 4C-I0.30 0.26 1.14
0.27 0.20 4:11
Static AnnaleNTo"t
eattTeatN4odeStatge Arualrals,
Hnae
TestDyeeeole AnalysisDyneamic Awslywle
Dy~asatl AnalyswsStatic AnalystsStatic Analysis
Anchor BeatsStructural
Geassuic FoicttanRupture, Froms tinpouActualtr Attach. Bull$
Generic Failure
Gleaerric StructuralOsoeiri SoppeetGarners puattlos
Gecarc FutoneteGeneric SupportGeneric Sutpport
0.24 0.21
DataBat
10S4MID20 14141
Daas Base
W1067, 3640194209-M14214214-M1214
1.690.427.38It.03
>10.0
"17.10>10.0
9.78
0.24
0.140.310.40
0.15
0.35
0.100.200.270.39
0.60
0.48
2.61
0.39I."13.00
2.49
400
17
2.5 PG&E Single Station Sigma Approach
2
1.5 / - Hosgri
-Los Osos
----;- San Luis Bay
1 ]-.- Shoreline
- Shoreline-Hosgri Linked
-Design0.5
0.1 1 10 100
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 1 - Deterministic Response Spectrum Single Station Approach
(b)(E
18
From: Oesterle, EricTo: Lu ,Tmothy Alexander.n; Karas, Rebecca; Marklev. Michael; ayne
Cc: Li, Yong l M LKmalW G ; Sebrosky, Joseoh
Subject: RE: Draft Briefing package for 10/21
Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 6:53:07 AM
Attachments: draft Diablo Canyon Seismic Status Briefing 21Oct2014.ootXimaoeQ0glon.0
.Importance: High
Thanks Tim! I appreciate your input on the briefing slides. This new approach has beenincorporated into the slides.
Everyone - Please review the attached updated briefing slides based on DE's input. The
changes have been denoted in RED. Please get back to me with any changes no than
9AM. Thanks!
Eric
From: Lupold, TimothySent: Monday, October 20, 2014 6:04 PMTo: Oesterle, Eric; Alexander, Ryan; Karas, Rebecca; Markley, Michael; Walker, WayneCc: Li, Yong; Manoly, KamalSubject: RE: Draft Briefing package for 10/21
Non Responsive
From: Oesterle, EricSent: Monday, October 20, 2014 10:31 AMTo: Alexander, Ryan; Karas, Rebecca; Lupold, Timothy; Markley, Michael; Walker, WayneSubject: FW: Draft Briefing package for 10/21
Good morning,
Just in case my email from home ended up in your spam or trash folder, I wanted to make
sure everyone knew that I sent out a draft briefing package for the briefing on 10/21.Please also refer to email below. Thanks.
Ericl IR. Oe4tieteNRC Project Manager
Diabio Canyon Power PlantCooper Ntuclear StationNRR/DORL/I..PL4-1
C/3D
301-415-1014
From: ERIC OESTERLE .Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 7:53 AMTo: Sebrosky, Joseph; Alexander, Ryan; Karas, Rebecca; Lupold, Timothy; Markley, Michael; Oesterle,Eric; Walker, WayneSubject: Draft Briefing package for 10/21
Hey Folks,
The purpose of this email is to provide you with a draft of the briefing package for the 10/21breifing of NRR, NRO and Region IV management. I figured that they only way I could get thisout for your review and comment in a timely manner was to cobble something together over theweekend. Attached please find the draft that I've prepared and please provide me yourcomments by COB Monday. Thanks for all your help and support!
. Eric
< U.S.NRCUnited States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Protecting People and the Environment
Assessment ofPG&E Operability Determination
for.New Seismic Information
NRR, NRO and Region IV Status Briefing
October 21, 2014
Contacts: J. Sebrosky (NRR/JLD), T. Lupold (NRR/DE), R. Karas (NRO/DSEA), R. Alexander (RIV),W. Walker (RIV), M. Markley (NRR/DORL), and E. Oesterle (NRR/DORL)
1
SU.S.NRCUnited Statte% Nuclear Rcgup:hrory (nitu~ission
Protecting People and the Environnient
Briefing Agenda
0
0
0Non Responsive
* Decisional Environment
2
r<U.S.NRCULited SoIte Nudeat RI-gulm fory C(m ijitsj<gT
Protecting People and the Environment
Non ResponsivE
3
3•U.S.NRC13inited Scitv Nucicau Regulatory Crommission
Protecting People and the Environment
Non ResponsivE
4
•<U.S.NRCUttited Staics Nuc'lear Rt-gubwa1ry Commision
Protecting People and the Enuironment
Non IRespciisiv
5
<' U.S.NRCUnited Sta+tc, Nuclear ReIllatul•ory C:+oltlli%ýtionn
Protecting People and the Environment
Non ResponsivE
6
<U.S.NRCUinied Stlate Nu leiti Rcgilvtorr)( ( sm>nn io,
Protecting People and the Environmen!
Non Responsiv
7
Lkrinciz Statei Nucleatr Regiiihrorv (urim.,64n
Protecting People and the Envi ronpient
Non Remosootw
8
I U.S.NRCUntfited Simtcs Nuclear Regularory Commission
Protecting People and the Environment
Non Responsive
9
r<ý,;U.S.NRCU nitet Scaites Nuclear Regularp o mmis(.Uffhsio(n
IPrnaeday,w Brooki and the Eniirenmnent
Non Responsivw
10
rj U.S.NRCt'ni,-ed Strmes Nuclea¢r Re.gutlmory, (.ommis..ion
Protecting People and the Evironment
Non Responsiv(
11
rl U-S.NRCUnsiied States Nuclear Rc~guiiIry ottv do
Prote~ctilig People and the Enw'iaroi~ent
Non Respon~sive
12
<<U. S.NR CUntetcd StateN Nuclear Regulaw.rv Comm1iss~ion1
Protecting Peopk and tile En vironmnent
Non Responsive
13
<iU.S.NRCUn•fli•eid St.ayes Nuclear I~c gt id. , Commissio n
Protecting People and the Environment
Non Responsiv(
14
< U.S.NRCULitetd St'aris N•ucica Regultti•y) ('omme, i.n
Protecting People and the Environment
Non Responsive
15
<-4< ;U.S.NRCUnite Staio Nuclear R1, I tory Commision
Protecting People and the Environmwnt
Decisional Environment
0
Non ResponSIVE
* FOIA - timing of PG&E issuance of seismic report andNRC EDO decision on DPO appeal
0 Non ResponsiveJ
Leak of DPO and publication in Press
Non Responsive
* December 2014 Hearings - Senate & House
16
From: isterle. EricTo: Sebrosky, JosephCc: Karas, Rebecca Alexand.r n; Llffiold, Timothy; Walker. Wayne; MarkteyMich1,J- Wilson, GeorgeSubject: Briefing slidesDate: Monday, October 20, 2014 11:00:22 AMAttachments: Diablo Canyon Seismic Status Briefing 21Oct2014.og=
Joe,
Thanks for your comments this morning on the briefing slides. I've updated the slides toincorporate your comments and include some other minor tweaks. All changes except fortable added on slide 8 are in RED,
ErtclR. Oe~tere-NRC Project Manager
Diablo Canyon Power Plant
Cooper Nuclear Station
NRR/DORL/LPL4-1
301-415-1014
'I13
<;< .S.NRCUnited States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Protecting People and the Environment
Assessment ofPG&E Operability Determination
forNew Seismic Information
NRR, NRO and Region IV Status BriefingOctober 21, 2014
Contacts: J. Sebrosky (NRRIJLD), T. Lupold (NRR/DE), R. Karas (NRO/DSEA), R. Alexander (RIV),W. Walker (RIV), M. Markley (NRR/DORL), and E. Oesterle (NRR/DORL)
1
k'U.S.NRCUnIrtl I ;rt Nui ILt Regu itory Comis.n i mi
Protecting People and the Environ ment
Briefing Agenda
0
0
0
0
0
0
Non Responsive
* Decisional Environment
2
<-j U.S.NRCUnited Siates Niudcar Regulutnry Coinnti%-on
P'rotecting People and gtie Environment
Non Responsive
3
(,U.S.NRCUnitcd States Nuclear Regulatc~ry Cornni'mommin
Protecting People and the Environment
Non Responsive
4
<?<US.NRCIUnited Stares Nuc i Rguda t R ru .orv G:IInn•r sion
Protecting People and the Enviromnment
Non Responsive
5
<-<U.S.NRCUnied Staie% Nuclear Regulatory (ommissioin
Protecting People and the En vironment
Non Responsive
6
3j U.S.NRCUnited Srates Nucdear Revgulircory (Cainrmisuio
Protecting People and the Environment
Norl Responsive
7
r< IU.S.NRCLnitcd Nrccs Nuiclcar Rqguatrory Camwiýin
Protecting People and the Environment
Non Responsive
8
7t U.S.NRCUni:cd SrrgjiL N IId.tr ReguilatoryI o (.in,, iti
Protecting People and the Environment
Non Responsive
9
r< U.S.NRC(Lnitced Staics tcca ~~iov(oInjoProt:ecting People and the Environment
Non ResponsivE
10
(12 U.S.NRCU'oited ýuis il Niclealr Regutla~oty Commtision
erotectiheg People and the Environment
Non Responsive
11
rlýU.S.NRCUnited Srmtc- Nuclear Regulatory Comnision
Protecting People and the Environment
Non Responsivw
12
ý< U.S.NRCUnized States Nuclear Regulatory (ommis-ion
Protecting People and the Environnent
Non Responsive
13
•jU.S.NRCUnited States Nucle'ar Repla1•tmy 0.)mmisisio~n
Protecting People and the Environment
Non Responsive
14
l. U.S.NRCUnited Stjiecs Nuckicr l.eguliry (Conmissimn
Protecting People and the Environment
Non Responsive
15
<.< U.S.NRCUite cd State, Nucler Reguatory( mrnlvtnisiw
Potecting People and the Environmnnt
Decisional Environment
0
Non Responsrmi
" FOIA --timing of PG&E issuance of seismic report andNRC EDO decision on DPO appeal-
* Leak of DPO and publication in Press0
Non. Responsive
0
* December 2014 Hearings - Senate & House
16
From: Oesterle, EricTo. : Munsoný Clifford: Williams, Megan; ULXon Hioichma.. Thomas; VWkeJy Marne;
Georl e A eJackson. Diane; DiFran f. Whale. Sheena Useldini. ra A. ]n;BDmcftL cQtt;L QKmee. Nell; Farnholtz. Thomas; Manoly. Karnal; Regnoso. John; BMQIt; ta~rkJr~isWran
LItt.Augr.y Dude Mhael; John Starnatakos; Stirewalt. Gerry Buchanan. Theresa; 2eavfgJThoasK~a.Ea& 1 Gralzer. V/ladlir: Hiland. Patrick; Ross-Lee. MarvJane. WIlson. Georg e;Bws. Alander. Ryan; Hay. Michael; T ; Kock. Andrea
Subject: Status of Diablo Canyon ActivitiesDate: Thursday, October 09, 2014 7:02:34 AM
Attachments: Status Undate on DCPP for Iennifer Uhle.docxlmagae03,unn
The purpose of this email is to provide a status on the multitude of Diablo Canyon activitiesthat staff has been working on this week.
II.
Non Responsive
Cl3
N~on ResponsIve
Ill. Filings associated with Friends of the Earth (FOE) Hearing Requesta. NRC response to FOE hearing request filed 10/6b, Additional filings also made by PG&E, NEI, and PG&E Senior Civil Engineer
on 1016c. Next steps - FOE response within 7 days and. also within 10 days of the
PG&E's answer and NEI's motion and brief, everybody else (NRC Staffincluded) can file a motion asking the Commission to take some actionagainst the other filings (e.g. strike part of the answer) - review of the other 3filings underway
IV. FOE FOIA request on timing of PG&E Seismic Report and DPO Appealdecisiona. Information from various offices received by FOIA coordinator - going
through duplication reviewb, Expected release of documents in packages - first one expected this weekc. Review of remaining packages for withholding to be performed to support
releases expected week of 10/13.
V. EPW Questions - DORL staff continues to work with Region IV and NRR/DE onfinalizing draft responses - coordinating with OCA - target issuance by 10/22
There continues to be a lot of activity associated with Diablo Canyon and I appreciateeveryone's support. We are making good progress on these challenging issues and havecompleted some tasks associated with making portions of the DCPP UFSAR publiclyavailable and getting two very important SSERs into the main ADAMS library. If I havemissed something that you are particularly interesting in please don't hesitate to contactme. Thanks!
Ertlc,. O9ee-•r•_NRC Project ManagerDiablo Canyon Power PlantCooper Nuclear StationNRR/DORL/LPL4-1301-415-1014
Status Update on NRC Activities associated with Diablo Canyon Seismic Report
Non Responswve
d. Congressional Hearings- tentatively December 2014 timeframe
V. Additional NRC staff activities (5 - 6 PMs currently supporting DCPP activities)a. Friends of the Earth FOIA response- in processh. FPW Cnnvrp-innal Otipstion resnnns-- in nrnrcs•
From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:
Wilson. GeorueEvans, Michele Lund, LouisMar!ley Michael; Broaddus. Douro Khanna. Meena: fBeasley. Beniamin; Eni i haaf. Robert0845 items for Monday's meetingMonday, October 06, 2014 8:34:50 Am
Region I
Non Responsive
Region 4
Diablo Canyon -
or-
Non Responsive
" Friends of the Earth request for hearing - petition response due to Commission10/6 (today) (DORL comments sent to OGC, OGC recommends not grantinghearing)
" Friends of the Earth FOIA - alleging collusion between the NRC and PG&E on DPOand AB1632 report to California expected to be finalized between OIS and NRRthis week.
* Response to EPW questions still progressing with expected response to beprovided by 10/22
Non Responsive
Non Responsive
George WilsonActing Deputy DirectorDivision of Operating Reactor LicensingOffice of Nuclear Reactor RegulationUSNRC301-415-1711Office 08E4
From: Sebroskv, Joseph
To: Qt•d•.,EL, ; Markle, MichaelSubject: FW: The final version Attorney Client PrivilegeDate: Monday, October 06, 2014 7:52:45 AMAttachments dave cite check correction;docx
FYI - per our discussion - joe
From: Roth(OGC), DavidSent: Friday, October 03, 2014 5:53 PMTo: OKeefe, Neil; Sebrosky, Joseph; Manoly, Kamal; U, YongCc: Young, Mitzi; Roth(OGC), David; Lindell, Joseph; Mizuno, Beth; Wachutka, JeremySubject: The final version Attorney Client Privilege
Good afternoon
Attached is the document we'll be filing Monday after fixing the noted citation errors andchanging the document's name. Thank you again for your hard work.
Thank you
David Roth
NRC Blackberry bHQ Office (301) 415-2749
I nis message may contain Seriitive l infbiiti1 I UeIfw UWse Only
Attorney"C" t 'ey Work Pro t
From: OKeefe, NeilSent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 2:17 PMTo: Roth(OGC), DavidSubject: RE: DER master do not edit without dave's pemission 2012 09 22 NRC Staff Answer to FOEDiablo Petition to Intervene
i•
Dave,
(b)(5)
Neil
From: Roth(OGC), DavidSent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 2:37 PMTo: OKeefe, Neil; Sebrosky, Joseph; Manoly, Kamal; Li, YongCc: Wachutka, Jeremy; Lindell, Joseph; Young, Mitzi; Roth(OGC), David; Mlzuno, Beth; Tibbetts, JohnSubject: RE: DER master do not edit without dave's pemlsslon 2012 09 22 NRC Staff Answer to FOEDiablo Petition to Intervene
Good afternoon tech staff.
I heard from Joe (thank you) but nobody else. Attached please find the revised filing.Please review it for tech accuracy and respond back to your legal team by tomorrowmorning (10:00 is fine).
As a reminder, do not re-distribute attorney-client information (including this e-mail andattachment). Please see Yellow Announcement 2014-102 for more information. shouldn'tre-send the document.
DISSEMINATION OF DOCUMENTS ISSUED BY THE Margaret M. DoaneOFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel
Posted: August 29, 2014 Number 2014-102
David Roth
NRC Blackberryb (0)(r)
HQ Office (301) 415-2749
ThWAmcz~ may zc;tcin sens~itiv imtetia m~l;feinat.ior condved to be15fluuial Use k: nly
From: Roth(OGC), DavidSent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 2:43 PMTo: OKeefe, Neil; Sebrosky, Joseph; Manoly, Kamal; U, YongCc: Roth(OGC), DavidSubject: RE: DER master do not edit without dave's pemlssion 2012 09 22 NRC Staff Answer to FOEDiablo Petition to Intervene
Good afternoon,
We have created an updated version of the Staffs (your) position on the Friends of theEarth request for a hearing in Diablo. The actual filing date is Monday. Neil. Joe,Kamal, Yong, are you in the office today (Wednesday)?
David Roth
NRC Blackber b rryHQ Office (301) 415-2749
0 Use OnlyAttorney ' t Privi t
From: OKeefe, NeilSent: Monday, September 22, 2014 4:25 PMTo: Roth(OGC), David; Sebrosky, Joseph; Manoly, Kamal; Li, YongSubject: RE: DER master do not edit without dave's pemission 2012 09 22 NRC Staff Answer toFOE Diablo Petition to InterveneImportance: High
Dave,
I have reviewed the document, and find no technical errors or concerns.
Neil O'KeefeChief, Branch BDRP, RIV
1('817) 200-1141 (o)j. Il~(o)
From: Roth(OGC), DavidSent: Monday, September 22, 2014 11:20 AMTo: Sebrosky, Joseph; Manoly, Kamal; OKeefe, Neil; Li, YongSubject: Fw: DER master do not edit without dave's pemission 2012 09 22 NRC Staff Answer toFOE Diablo Petition to Intervene
Please review attached immediately for tech accuracy. We need a very fast turnaround before
2:00 today. Sorry for the short notice. Do not forward this email or the attached document.
David Roth
Office of the General Counsel
Office (30i) 415-2749
Work Cel( (b)(6).
At to r ney Priviler Pro
','ntfrnmNItRC R acKBerry
From: Roth(OGC), DavidSent: Monday, September 22, 2014 12:07 PMTo: Tlbbetts, JohnCc: Mizuno, Beth; Young, Mitzi; Lindell, Joseph; Wachutka, Jeremy; Roth(OGC), DavidSubject: DER master do not edit without dave's pemission 2012 09 22 NRC Staff Answer to FOEDiablo Petition to Intervene
John,
As we discussed, I'm done and you now have permission finalize (for Ed) the filing.Please work from the DER master in the G: drive, so everyone knows that you have itlocked for editing.
John, the file has auto TOC and uses styles for footnotes and for heading levels I to 3.I didn't add a TOA there might be one footnote with TOA hypertext markup.
Draft of the "NRC Staff Answer to Petition to Intervene and
Request for Hearing by Friends of the Earth"
63 pages withheld in their entirety - exemption (b)(5)
From: Sebroskv, JosephTo: Wilson GeoraeCc: Oesterle. Eric Markley, MichaelSubject: FW: draft agenda for status update for j. uhleDate: Monday, October 06, 2014 5:59:35 AMAttachments: Status Update on DCPP for lennfer Uhie.docx
diablo om work assignmentdocxDraft Oueestons for PGE - RIV Comollation.docximaoeOL0.ono
George,
Per our discussion this morning, I sent you the scheduler for the 1:30 pm briefing ofJennifer later today. Attached is the draft agenda that Eric developed over the weekendfor the briefing. In Eric's email below he mentions a plot (below is the plot that he willinclude in the agenda), Also per our discussion, attached is a list of diablo pmassignments that provides a descrintion of the various items that have been released andwill be released to the publid Non Responsive Ishortly. Lastly, I included the 3questions that were verbally provided to PG&E on Friday with the expectation that therewill be a phone call later this week.
Let me or Eric know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Joe
c135
From: ERIC OESTERLE [mailtol•oSent: Sunday, October 05, 2014 8:37 AMTo: Sebrosky, Joseph; Markley, MichaelSubject: draft agenda for status update for j. uhle
Guys,
Attached is the draft agenda for the status update to Jennifer Uhle that has been scheduled for1:30PM on 10/6/14. Thought it would be good to send out prior to tomorrow. The only thing thatI wanted to add to the agenda but can't do until I get back to office is the Shoreline linkedergodic spectra developed by NRC staff comparison to PG&E Shoreline linked SSTC andHosgri. I beleive that Jennifer will appreciate that level of detail. Please let me know ASAP if youhave any comments on draft agenda. Thanks.
Eric
Diablo PM Work Assianments as of 10/6/14Work assignment PM(s) rStatus - 1016114 Date Information
Released to thePublic
1~
Non Responsive
Support for response to FOE hearing request Eric Oesterle, Joe In process - target issuance 10/6(14 10/6/14- tentativeSebroskv
3
4
Non ResponsNei
Friends of the Earth (FOE) FOIA response - Eric Oesterle, Joe In process - staff collecting information, 10/8/14, partialtiming of release of DPO coincident with Sebrosky, Balwant FOIA coordinator would like to begin release with morerelease of State of California report Singal, Peter Bamford, releasing information around 10/8 in a information to follow
and Bhalchandra staggered fashion as redactions areVaidya. completed
EPW congressional question response Eric Oesterle and Joe In process - internal meeting on 10/2 to N/A will not beSebrosky discuss draft response. Target for NRR/DE released to the public
input is 10/10/14. Targeting providing-response to OCA around 10117 or 10/24
8
9
10
Non Responsive
101212014 Questions for PG&E Concerning Operability Determination
Non Responsive
Non Responsive
Status Update on NRC Activities associated with Diablo Canyon Seismic Report
II.
III.
IVI.
Non Responsive
V.
(b)(5),Non Responsive
fbi(5"
From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:
Attachments:
Sebroslý. _osernhVaidva. Bhalchandra: Klett, Audrey; Harris, BrianOesterie, Eric: Marklev Michael Alexander. Ryan: e Hioschman. Thomasinfo: cancellation of 9:00 am diablo canyon pm meetingTuesday, October 07, 2014 7:08:06 AMdliablo gm work assionment.docx
Bhalchandra, Audrey, and Brian,
I sent you a scheduler cancelling the 9:00 am (eastern) Diablo Canyon meeting today.The reason that it was cancelled is that Jennifer Uhle requested that Eric and I attend the9:00 am Commission meeting on Fukushima seismic issues in the event questionsregarding Diablo Canyon are asked. Attached is the latest Diablo status table. We expectto hear back from Paris So today on the FOE FOIA and someonewill be provided with theopportunitv to review documents to determine whether or not they can be released. In
Non Responsive
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Joe
C- ( 3(ýp
Diablo PM Work Assi gnments as of 10/6/14- Work assignment PM(s) rtatus - 1016/14 Date Information
- Released to thePublic
Non Responsive
2 Support for response to FOE hearing request Eric Oesterle, Joe In process - target issuance 10/6114 10/6/14 - tentative
3
_Non Responsive
6 Friends of the Earth (FOE) FOIA response - Eric Oesterle, Joe In process - staff collecting information, 10/8/14, partialtiming of release of DPO coincident with Sebrosky, Balwant FOIA coordinator would like to begin release with morerelease of State of California report Singal, Peter Bamford, releasing information around 10/8 in a information to follow
and Bhalchandra staggered fashion as redactions areVaidya. completed
7 EPW congressional question response Eric Oesterle and Joe In process - internal meeting on 10/2 to N/A will not beSebrosky discuss draft response. Target for NRRIDE released to the public
input is 10110/14. Targeting providingresponse to OCA around 10/17 or 10/24
9
10
Non Responsive
Ter
Subject:
Attachments:
Uhl Jeomfer M&WeyV Rchwel LbM Lo i ,Gm
RE: Diablo canyonMonday, Seplenvb 29, 2014 5:54:09 AM
Jennifer.
Attached is the latest on the status of Diablo Canyon issues. There are two issues that the staff believes it needs to addressbefore it can provide you with a recommendation on how to proceed (Le.. single station approach and updating calculations usedto resolve the DPO). We received data from PG&E on 9/26 on the single station approach and expect to receive more datatoday on the DPO calculations. There is a tech staff meeting on 10/1 at which time we hope to be able to make a decision onwhether or not we have enough information to make a recommendation or If we need more information or more time, The twoissues are discussed in greater detail below. You should also know that Audrey Kiett and Brian Harris (JLD PM) have beenbrought in to help to develop the recommendation letter on whether or not the licensee should proceed with assessing newseismic information using the 50.54(f) process and the communication plan associated with the issuance of an inspection reportand the letter back to the licensee based on the data in the 2014 State of California report.
Please let me know if you have any questions or if you want me to arrange a briefing for you on the current status.
Thanks,
Joe
-- 1977 HE spectrum
- 1991 LTSP/SSER34 spectrum
-- PB - Linked Hosgri and San Simeon (M 7.3)
- PB - Los Osos (M 6.7)
PB - San Luis Bay (M 6.4)
-- PB - Shoreline (M 6.7)
. . 1977 HE spectrum extended to 0.5 Hz
0
(I)• ~0.5- -
0.1 1 10 100Frequency (Hz)
Deterministic Response Spectra 15% Damping)for the Power-Block Foundation Level
HAZARD SENSITIVITY AND IMPACT EVALUATION
_____ ____1Pcfi CGa ia n dE I# orto Cwt pa" Figure 2-1
From: Uhle, JenniferSent: Friday, September 26, 2014 6:37 PMTo: Markley, Michael; Sebrosky, Joseph; Lund, Louise; Wilson, GeorgeSubject: Diablo canyon
Hi guys. I meant to get an update on where we were with regard to our documenting our"analysis/revew' of the information thelicensee provided to the State. I know we cannot use the defta-CDF approach, I wanted to ensure that we are not over doingour review. If the seismic experts take a look at the information and do a review and conclude that little if any change in thehazard results from the new discovery of a lengthened shoreline fault, then they can document that. That would mean there isnothing that would make us change the date of the March submittal for the licensee's reevaluation. Is that where we are and hasthat been communicated to the seismic guys? Thanks, Jennifer
From: Sebrosky, JosephSent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 12:51 PMTo: Stovall, Scott; Munson, Clifford; Williams, Megan; Li, Yong; Hipschman, Thomas; Walker,
Wayne; Oesterle, Eric; Singal, Balwant; Markley, Michael; Jackson, Diane; DiFrancesco,Nicholas; Whaley, Sheena; Uselding, Lara; Ake, Jon; Burnell, Scott; OKeefe, Neil;Farnholtz, Thomas; Manoly, Kamal; Reynoso, John; Hill, Brittain; Dudek, Michael; JohnStamatakos ([email protected]); Stirewalt, Gerry; Buchanan, Theresa; Weaver, Thomas;Karas, Rebecca; Graizer, Vladimir; Hiland, Patrick; Ross-Lee, MaryJane; Lupold, Timothy;Wilson, George; Bowers, Anthony; Alexander, Ryan; Hay, Michael; Pruett, Troy; Kock,Andrea; Harris, Brian; Vaidya, Bhalchandra; Klett, Audrey; Smith, Chris
Subject: info: status of diablo operability review 9-25-14
To all,
The purpose of this email is to provide you with updated status regarding the Diablo Canyon operability review.This email includes updates on the status of NRC inspection information requests and the assignment ofadditional headquarters PMs to help with the workload.
Non Responsiv
3) Provide the results of the calculations that were rerun based on the calculations used to supportthe resolution of the DPO (see description in DPO case file pdf page 62 of 164 at ML14252A 743which discusses the scaling factors used in the March 2014 PG&E analysis). PG&E indicatedthat it did not believe that the analysis was needed to demonstrate operability. Nevertheless,PG&E was rerunning the analysis with the data from the 2014 State of California report.
Non Responsive1
Non ResponsIVE
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Joe
2
Work assignment PM(s) rtatus - 9/25/14Friends of the Earth (FOE) FOIA Eric Oesterle, Joe Sebrosky, n process - staffresponse Balwant Singal, Peter Bamford, ollecting information
and Bhalchandra Vaid a.EPW congressional questionresponse
Eric Oesterle and JoeSebrosky
In process - target forDroviding draft to RIV10/1/14
Non Responsive
Support for response to FOEhearing request I Eric Oesterle, Joe Sebrosky 1 n process I
From: Manoiv. KamatTO, Sebr1k2 QAlsY o
Cc: J unson Clifford LL=; Markv ,H a rick Ross-Lee,. Ca Jane . ]n;Karas.-Reber-ca; Weaver Thomas: M; Wha!U, Sheena: Yom.Hti O 1;fe th(OGQ
SLUp2d.J Tmotw Williams, MeganSubject: RE: info: status of dtablo operability review 9-23-14Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 2:58:48 PM
Joe,(•')()
on Responsive
Kamal Manoly
From: Sebrosky, JosephSent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 6:05 AMTo: Stovall, Scott; Munson, Clifford; Williams, Megan; U, Yong; Hipschman, Thomas; Walker, Wayne;Oesterle, Eric; Singal, Balwant; Markley, Michael; Jackson, Diane; DiFrancesco, Nicholas; Whaley,Sheena; Uselding, Lara; Ake, Jon; Burnell, Scott; OKeefe, Neil; Farnholtz, Thomas; Kanatas, Catherine;Roth(OGC), David; Manoly, Kamal; Reynoso, John; Hill, Brittain; Dudek, Michael; John Stamatakos([email protected]); Stirewalt, Gerry; Buchanan, Theresa; Weaver, Thomas; Karas, Rebecca; Graizer,Vladimir; Hiland, Patrick; Ross-Lee, MaryJane; Lupold, Timothy; Wilson, George; Bowers, Anthony;Alexander, Ryan; Hay, Michael; Pruett, Troy; Kock, Andrea; Young, Mitzi; Harris, BrianSubject: RE: info: status of diablo operability review 9-23-14FThe rest of this string may be found as
To allI document C/39.To all.
The purpose of this email is to provide you with the results of an inspection phone callwith the licensee yesterday (9/22) regarding the Diablo Canyon operability review.
Non Responsive
C!13@
From:To:Cc:
Subject-Date:
SebrEU. _osenhH'ill. Brittain
Alexander. Ryan; Walker, Wayne; Kars. Aee, MJonsonn CliUr' A. Yong; MpnolvKamal:Oester. Markley. Michael Willams, Heq; Hpsch-man, Thomas.
question: status of Diablo DDE cakcs associated with operability review 9-23-14Tuesday, September 23, 2014 6:36:17 AM
Non Responsive
Please let me know if I am missing something.
Thanks,
Joe
From: Hill, BrittainSent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 6:27 AMTo: Sebrosky, JosephSubject: RE: info: status of diablo operabilIty review 9-23-14
Non Rsponfsive
Thanks-
Britt
Cý31
From: Sebrosky, JosephSent Tuesday, September 23, 2014 6:05 AMTo: Stovall, Scott; Munson, Clifford; Williams, Megan; Li, Yong; Hipschman, Thomas; Walker, Wayne;Oesterle, Eric; Singal, Balwant; Markdey, Michael; Jackson, Diane; DiFrancesco, Nicholas; Whaley,Sheena; Uselding, Lara; Ake, Jon; Bumell, Scott; OKeefe, Neil; Famholtz, Thomas; Kanatas, Catherine;Roth(OGC), David; Manoly, Kamal; Reynoso, John; Hill, Brittain; Dudek, Michael; John Stamatakos(stamaswri.ora); Stirewalt, Gerry; Buchanan, Theresa; Weaver, Thomas; Karas, Rebecca; Graizer,Vladimir; Hiland, Patrick; Ross-Lee, Marylane; Lupold, Timothy; Wilson, George; Bowers, Anthony;Alexander, Ryan; Hay, Michael; Pruett, Troy; Kock, Andrea; Young, Mitzi; Harris, BrianSubject*: RE: info: status of diablo operability review 9-23-14
To all,
The purpose of this email is to provide you with the results of an inspection phone callwith the licensee yesterday (9/22) regarding the Diablo Canyon operability review.
Yesterday (9/22) RIV led a call with the licensee to discuss information needs tosupport the Diablo Canyon operability review. The following two information needswere verbally discussed with the licensee:
Non Responsive
During the call PG&E provided the following information:
Non Responsive
0 PG&E indicated that based on a question from RIV last Friday (9/19) it wasrerunning the calculations used to support the resolution of the DPO (see descriptionin DPO case file pdf page 62 of 164 at ML14252A743 which discusses the scaling
factors used in the March 2014 PG&E analysis).Non Responsive
Non Responsive
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Joe.
From; Sebrosvy JosephTo, S; Munson, Clifford' Wiliams. Megan; I_= Hignhman, Thomas; Walker, WavnOe:QeI
E Sinal Batwant M Starkley. Whig]; JaQk DiFrancesco. Nicholas; Whaley. Sheena;Lar; Ake,. .o:l ScottS Oleefe. Nefl; Farrholtz. Thomas; .Kanaras Caterine; ;Manot, KamalB RgynosoJofn Hill. Bittain John Slamatakos (lstam(swri~orav; ýQ Bughanan. Thereao: ! a Rbc azer. Vladimir: HiianI, Pa rckMalnang; Lold. Tomotr Wilson. GAhen; Alexander. Ryan; Hay, Michael; P;Kock. Andrea: YoungM#. -.tti Harris, Brian
Subject: RE; Info: status of diablo operability review 9 -22-14Date: Monday, September 22, 2014 6:00;:30 AM The rest of this string may be found as documentAttachments: PGE soectraI comoarlson.oxt C/141.
To all,
The purpose of this email is to provide you with the latest status of the Diablo Canyonoperability review, Based on discussions with the licensee on 9/18 and an internalmeeting directly after that meeting, senior management was briefed on 9/19.
The agenda for the 9/19 meeting can be found below. The outcome of the meetingwas as follows:
Non Responsive
c/4,
Non Responsive
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Joe
>>>>>>>>>>agenda for 9/19 diablo senior managementbriefing>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Purpose: internal meeting with SES managers to discuss process going forwardfor Diablo Canyon operability determination associated with new seismic informationin the State of California report
Outcome: Decision made on how to proceed
Agenda:
Non Resoonsive
From: StovalScTo: Gralzer, Vladimir: Sebrosky, Joseo Munson. Clifford; Williams. Mean UY ; Hloschman. Thomas; W
Wy= Oesterle. Eric Sinaal. Balwant Marklev. Michael; D DiFrancesco, Nicholas Whaiev.hnUseldin. Lara: A J; OKeene. Neil; Farnholtz. Thomas; Kanatas. Catherine;
Roth(OGC, David; ManoyKI Reynoso. Johni lritan; Dudek. Michael HO-OWFN-08802-12D:.tamatakos (IstaM = Stirewalt, Gerry Buchanan. Theresa; Weaver, Thomas; Karas. Rebecca; Hiland.
Jatric Ross-Lee. Matyiane; Lunold. Timothy JUi 5gA ; HO-OWFNI-0B06-12o
Cc: DE Calendar ResourceSubje•t: RE: Info: status of diablo operability reviewDate: Friday, September 19, 2014 9:34:24 AM
Non Responsive
Scott Stovall
From: Graizer, Vladimir Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 8.41 AMTo: Sebrosky, Joseph; Stovall, Scott; Munson, Clifford; Williams, Megan; U, Yong; Hipschman, Thomas;Walker, Wayne; Oesterle, Eric; Singal, Balwant; Markley, Michael; Jackson, Diane; DiFrancesco,Nicholas; Whaley, Sheena; Uselding, Lara; Ake, Jon; Burnell, Scott; OKeefe, Neil; Famholtz, Thomas;Kanatas, Catherine; Roth(OGC), David; Manoly, Kamal; Reynoso, John; Hill, Brittain; Dudek, Michael;HQ-OWFN-08B02-12p; John Stamatakos (jstam@swrborg); Stirewalt, Gerry; Buchanan, Theresa;Weaver, Thomas; Karas, Rebecca; Hiland, Patrick; Ross-Lee, MaryJane; Lupold, Timothy; Wilson,George; HQ-OWFN-08BO6-12pCc: DE_Calendar ResourceSubject: RE: info: status of diablo operability review
Non Responsive
From: Sebrosky, JosephSent: Friday, September 19, 2014 6:03 AMTo: Stovall, Scott; Munson, Clifford; Williams, Megan; Li, Yong; Hipschman, Thomas; Walker, Wayne;Oesterle, Eric; Singal, Balwant; Markley, Michael; Jackson, Diane; DiFrancesco, Nicholas; Whaley,Sheena; Uselding, Lara; Ake, Jon; Burnell, Scott; OKeefe, Neil; Farnholtz, Thomas; Kanatas, Catherine;Roth(OGC), David; Manofy, Kamal; Reynoso, John; Hill, Brittain; Dudek, Michael; HQ-OWFN-08B02-12p;John Stamatakos (stam(&swri-or~a; Stirewalt, Gerry; Buchanan, Theresa; Weaver, Thomas; Karas,Rebecca; Graizer, Vladimir; Hiland, Patrick; Ross-Lee, MaryJane; Lupold, Timothy; Wilson, George; HQ-OWFN-08B06-12pCc: DEalendar ResourceSubject: info: status of diablo operability review
To all,
The purpose of this email is to provide YOU with tha .tfils of fhp riqhl a rabilib, 4revie1
No~n Responsive
Cl/,d
'Jon Responsive
Senior Management Meeting Draft Agenda (subject to chang-e)
Purpose: internal meeting with SES managers to discuss process going forwardfor Diablo Canyon operability determination associated with new seismic informationin the State of California report
Outcome: Decision made on how to proceed
Agenda:Non Responsive
DA!Suods~b uoK
(0 cl)
TAýISUOdsa~ WON
(Ion ResponsivE
Nonl Responsive
Non Responsive
From: Stuchell. SheldoTo: Dudek. Michael
Cc: Markle. MichaelSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-I-NRR)Date: Thursday, September 25, 2014 1:52:40 PM
Understand. The ticket was assigned to DORL, DPR will support as needed. The only point I have to make, is thatthe request does not meet 2.206 requirements. Therefore, DPR is not involved.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dudek, MichaelSent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 1:1 7 PMTo: Stuchell, SheldonCc: Markley, MichaelSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-I-NRR)
Sheldon: The only way that you can close the ticket is to provide the justification to NRR's Mailroom and have
them work (through the OEDO STARS System) to close it out. Unfortunately, with the new system, I cannotfacilitate closing out a ticket any longer.
Also, FYI, the justification should be in paragraph form and answer all of the who, what, and why for the
Chairman's Office.
Thanks!Michael 1. Dudek
Michael 1. Dudek I OEDO Executive Technical Assistant I U.S. [email protected] I1: (301) 415-65001 BB: F b)(6)
----- Original Message -----From: Stuchell, SheldonSent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 5:59 PMTo: Dudek, Michael; Markley, MichaelCc: Mohseni, Aby; Banic, Merrilee; Mensah, Tanya; Khanna, Meena; Singal, Balwant; Oesterle., Eric; Pedersen,Renee
Subject: FW: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-l-NRR)
Mike & Mike,
I'd like to make sure this issue is closed, and any ticket assigned to NRR is closed. Any correspondence coming tothe NRC can be considered as a 2.206 petition, if it meets the requirements of our MD and is determined to be anactual petition. In this case, the submittal does not meet the requirements to be a 2.206 petition, and should be
considered general correspondence.
The e-mail chain below can be confusing, and I must point out that no single individual submitted thiscorrespondence. It was not Mr. Peck. Mr. Peck, one of our Sr. Resident Inspector's, did in fact have a DPO aboutDiablo, but that DPO has been dispositioned. The submitter in this case was "change.org."
Therefore, there is no individual we can respond to.
I highly recommend this be closed with.no further action. As noted in the ticket, staff is to respond "asappropriate.!' In this case, the appropriate response is no response to an organization.
Ifthere are still questions as to how to close the issue, it should be worked out between Mike and Mike. This is not
c7&
a 2.206 petition and NRR'DPR is not involved,
Hope this helps,Sheldon
----- Original Message -----
From: Banic, MerrileeSent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:36 PMTo: Stuchell, SheldonCc: Mensah, TanyaSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
• A little background:If change.org is basing its petition on M. Peck's, a Sr Resident's, DPO, the NRC resolved his DPO:http:i/r ii .rcLoov/headlines/DliabloSafe.9-18-20 1 4.pdf
From: Stuchell, SheldonSent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:34 PMTo: Dudek, Michael; Mensah, Tanya; Banic, Merrilee; Markley, Michael; Kokajko, Lawrence; Khanna, MeenaCc: Singal, Balwant; Oesterle, Eric; Pedersen, ReneeSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-1 4-0495-1-NRR)
All,
The easiest solution to this, is for the DORL PM to respond by e-mail to the submitter (he is not a petitioner) and lethim know that we have received his general correspondence and thank him for his interest in nuclear safety. Thereis no need to expound or explain any further than that.
We receive numerous submittals all year long, .that require nothing more than an acknowledgement.
Sheldon
From: Dudek, MichaelSent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:25 PMTo: Mensah, Tanya; Banic, Merrilee; Markley, Michael; Kokajko, Lawrence; Khanna, MeenaCc: Singal, Balwant; Oesterle, Eric; Pedersen, Renee; Stuchell, SheldonSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-l-NRR)
All: As a result of the past e-mails, it now appears that we (the staff) have an action to contact the petitioner (Mr.Peck) to have him formally submit the petition in hard-copy to the NRC so that we have an official record of hisconcerns.
Question: Does the staff want to take this action, or should I try to go back through the Chairman's Office for thisrequest since that is where is action originated?
Please advise.
Michael I. DudekMichael 1. Dudek I OEDO Executive Technical Assistant I U.S. NRC-: [email protected]<niiailto:M ichael. [email protected] v> 1-: (301) 415-6500 131:I (b)(6)
From: Mensah, Tanya
The e-mail chain below can be confusing, and I must point out that no single individual submitted this correspondence. It wasnot Mr. Peck, Mr. Peck, one of our Sr. Resident Inspector's, did in fact have a DPO about Diablo, but that DPO has beendispositioned. The submitter in this case was "change.org."
Therefore, there Is no Individual we can respond to.
I highly recommend this be dosed with no further action. As noted in the ticket, staff is to respond "as appropriate." In thiscase, the appropriate response is no response to an organization.
If there are still questions as to how to dose the issue, it should be worked out between Mike and Mike. This is not a 2.206petition and NRR/DPR is not involved.
Hope this helps,Sheldon
----- Original Message .....
From: Banic, MerrileeSent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:36 PMTo: Stuchell, SheldonCc: Mensah, TanyaSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
A little background:If change.org Is basing its petition on M. Peck's, a Sr Resident's, DPO, the NRC resolved his DPO:
Jrn.pvl headlin sfDiabloSafe,9-18.2014.adf
From: Stuchell, SheldonSent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:34 PMTo: Dudek, Michael; Mensah, Tanya; Banic, Merrilee; Markley, Michael; Kokajko, Lawrence; Khanna, MeenaCc: Singal, Balwant; Oesterle, Eric; Pedersen, ReneeSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
All,
The easiest solution to this, is for the DORL PM to respond by e-mail to the submitter (he is not a petitioner) and let him knowthat we have received his general correspondence and thank him for his interest in nuclear safety. There is no need toexpound or explain any further than that.
We receive numerous submittals all year long, that require nothing more than an acknowledgement.
Sheldon
From: Dudek, MichaelSent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:25 PMTo: Mensah, Tanya; Banic, Merrilee; Markley, Michael; Kokajko, Lawrence; Khanna, MeenaCc: Singal, Balwant; Oesterle, Eric; Pedersen, Renee; Stuchell, SheldonSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-049S-I-NRR)
All: As a result of the past e-mails, it now appears that we (the staff) have an action to contact the petitioner (Mr. Peck) tohave him formally submit the petition in hard-copy to the NRC so that we have an official record of his concerns.
Question: Does the staff want to take this action, or should I try to go back through the Chairman's Office for this request
since that Is where Is action originated?
Please advise.
Michael I. DudekMichael I. Dudek I OEDO Executive Technical Assistant I U.S. NRC*: [email protected]<mailto:Michael.Dudek. •nrc.gov> I *: (301) 415-6500 1BB:J
From: Mensah, TanyaSent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 11:24 AMTo: Banic, Merrilee; Markley, Michael; Kokajko, Lawrence; Khanna, MeenaCc: Singal, Balwant; Oesterle, Eric; Pedersen, Renee; Dudek, Michael; Stuchell, SheldonSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-I-NRR)
To expand on Lee's comment, in the past we've had several petitioners attempt to direct us to their personal websites or blosto "download" 2.206 petitions and other supplemental materials. =()(•)
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 11:24 AMTo: Banic, Merrilee; Markley, Michael; Kokajko, Lawrence; Khanna, MeenaCc: Singal, Balwant; Oesterle, Eric; Pedersen, Renee; Dudek, Michael; Stuchell, SheldonSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1 -NRR)
To expand on Lee's comment, in the past we've had several petitioners attempt to direct us to their personalwebsites or blogs to "download" 2.206 petitions and other supplemental materials.I (b(5I•
=bX.)In tese
cases, the PM simply informed the petitioner of the process to. submit a 2.206 petition, in writing, if they want theirconcerns considered under that process.
Members of the public often change their website links/blogs. Their URLs may not even exist in a year. So we needan official NRC record of the petitioner's concerns, which they have to submit in writing to the NRC. If thepetitioner has videos or other electronic media to support their 2.206 petition, we advise them of the proper way tosubmit it, I think the DCD has guidance on the proper submission of electronic media to ensure that it is docketed.
Tanya
From: Banic, MerrileeSent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:32 AMTo: Markley, Michael; Kokajko, Lawrence; Khanna, MeenaCc: Singal, Balwant; Oesterle, Eric; Mensah, Tanya; Pedersen, Renee; Dudek, Michael; Stuchell, SheldonSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR- 14-0495-! -N RR)
Per our MD 8.11 "Section 2.206 requires that the petition be submitted in writing and provide the grounds for takingthe proposed action...."
From: Markley, MichaelSent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:11 AMTo: Kokajko, Lawrence; Khanna, Meena
Cc: Singal, Balwant; Oesterle, Eric; Mensah, Tanya; Banic, Merrilee; Pedersen, Renee; Dudek, MichaelSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
Lawrence and Tim,
The assertion that this follows the process in 2.206 for submitting petitions to the EDO seems highly out of process.We should not have to download software to review a submittal to the NRC. Likewise, we should not have to gothrough extreme measures to access the information via an external website. I am struggling to see how the linkprovides an actual petition. It merely asserts that Michael Peck's DPO should provide the basis for a petition toshut down the plant. This is highly out of process.
From my view, we have nothing to process here. The petitioner should be referred to the regulations in 2.206 andfollow the process. NRR/DPR may disagree, but I do not see a document that we have submitted in an officialmanner that warrants the assignment of a petition manager. Let's talk. I do not see a basis for entering this into thepetition process.
Mike Markley
From: Dudek, MichaelSent: Tuesday, September 23. 2014 2:43 PMTo: Markley, MichaelCc: Singal, Balwant; Oesterle, EricSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-I-NRR)
I went onto my iPhone and found it on the web site.
[cid:[email protected]]
Petitioning Nuclear Regulatory CommissionDecommission the aging Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant 1.[cid:image002.jpg@0 ICFD800.6EB578A0]<ht• ps://www.zhaa e.org/oranizations/uncoMMon.._flk>
2.
I. Petition by
Uncommon Folk <http s1:/w•"•v.change.org/ t izations/uncommon .folk>
In fault-ridden San Louis Obispo County, stands California's last two operating nuclear reactors in the aging DiabloCanyon Power Plant (circa 1973). They are located proximally to the Los Osos, Hosgri, San Andreas, and ShorelineFaults, along shores near Avila Beach.
According to a recent report by Michael Blood (ABC 30 Action News); a senior federal nuclear expert, MichaelPeck, has urged regulators to shut down the aging power plant until they can determine whether or not the facility'stwin reactors can withstand an earthquake of similar or larger size than the one that recently shook Napa. Bloodreports:
Peck, who for five years was Diablo Canyon's lead on-site inspector, says in a 42-page, confidential report that theNuclear Regulatory Commission is not applying the safety rules it set out for the plant's operation.
In light of the unfolding disaster at the Fukushima Daichii power plant, we the undersigned are asking that GovernorJerry Brown support us in demanding that the Diablo Canyon Plant be shut down until it can be properly earthquaketested and Michael Peck's charges of negligence be thoroughly investigated.
Or better yet, we ask that Jerry Brown work to shut down the Diablo Canyon Plant permanently, as it is located insuch an unsafe region.
We the undersigned ask that NRC Inspector General Hubert T. Bell, Chaiman Allison Macfarlane, and GovenorJerry Brown listen to the experts and heed the warnings of recent history, so we are not collectively doomed torepeat such catastrophic failures.
For the sake of California and its citizens, young and old. please shut down the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant!
Here is a short and enlightening PBS video that was made before several more major faultlines were found in thatarea...making it even MORE imperative that these professional opinions be heeded. Please take a few minutes towatch. There is a long history of lies and suppression of information surrounding the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant,at the peril of our citizens and their families->
http:/i/video.pbs.orgivideo/2056655205,,!
MORE PETITIONS TO SIGN. THIS MOVEMENT IS GAINING MOMENTUM, THANKS TO ALL OF YOU.Please sign them all and PASS IT ON! Together we can do it->
(1) http:i/action .foeor," iaction3/comrnon/public/?action. KEY= 16333
(2) http:/2petitions.moveonorusio i./nrc-stid2wni-diablo?soIrCee•s.icn tw&r byn7595393
(3) http:i/ict.eredoaction.comn/sign/diablo canlyorn
IMPORTANT TO THOSE LIVING IN NEAR DIABLO CANYON. RECENT STUDY INDICATESSIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER CANCER RATES IN RESIDENTS->
ht 1;://cal0coastnewscom2014103/1ighcancer-rates-near-d ial' o -ca ny-jn-l-
litpl://lwww~helencaldicostfoiinidationn.ora/blo~ysdiealth-sttudies-explode-tbe-n1Vth-Otf-Ehe- 'safc'-nuclear-power-
plnp t < t:/v, lcia dioto da noeI g l eIh d e-u d-he nyho-ie'sf'- QIcr
11 1 : .. A-'I H ~Y(JIILIUU~I I I~~~AJI H' I IULi~4i -pUVY~I -, I~~IJ I I I l~"~'-''~ ~'
More information->
I I I - I t I1IL)/Wl up: LH mrd iva nesW.oUL s/I I I-U j111 gX-l V1j1 U111,I/ .I oae-&!)IU.II k1it'.~C kI-W
]jnp:/1/worl dbu s i nss~org/n uc Iear-regu Iators-h ear- from-an 2ra-RUN i c-on-d iab Io-can yon- p Iant/
I-++ --. I+ ...... .. . +• .++. . .... /........I+_ I, I' +. . . .lipitt V,'w',' at.~iI~~1cor.inews artX.'/ 1 II.1e ErliLI tiah-a mj uc IIWS1 II 1)it)I I L-ca/I- 11/15I ILII1 LI)c/li 5'I Li lip
http:t/www~cbsnews/coi news/ca iforn ia- earthquake-expert-urges- nuc ear-n I ant-closure-over-threatV
Xttp//www.d ai Iynews.comdAeneral-news!20140825/diablo-canvyon-nuclear-plant-should-be-closed-for-guake-
testinol-expert-says
To:Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Hubert T. Bell, Inspector General at the NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Allison Macfarlane, Chariman of the NRC Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Gov. Jerry Brown, California
Decommission Aging Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
Sincerely,[Your name]
Michael 1. Dudek I OEDO Executive Technical Assistant I U.S. NRCMichael.Dudek@nrc~gov<niailto:MichaelI.Dudkcýnrc.gov> *: (301) 415-6500 BB:
From: Markley, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 2:24 PMTo: Dudek, MichaelCc: Singal, Balwant; Oesterle, EricSubject: FW: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
Mike,
Can we go back to the Chairman's office to get a hard copy of the petition.? We are having no luck in accessing thedocument via the links.
Mike
From: Singal, BalwantSent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 12:42 PMTo: Mensah, TanyaCc: Oesterle, Eric; Markley, MichaelSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-I-NRR)
Cathy was unable to help (could not open the file from the link in the file). She suggested contacting CSC. CSC
was on my desk yesterday, but were also unable to open the file. They believe there is a problem with the link.Hence, as oftnow we do not have a resolution and do not have a copy of the petition.
From: Mensah, TanyaSent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:57 AMTo: Markley, Michael; Banic, MerrileeCc: Singal, BalwantSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
Any resolution on this? I typically email Cathy Jaegars for the incoming when we have problems accessing it viaADAMS. Looks like Balwant already submitted an email to her.
Just following up.
Tanya
From: Markley, MichaelSent: Monday, September 22, 2014 3:41 PMTo: Banic, Merrilee; Mensah, TanyaCc: Singal, BalwantSubject: FW: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR- 14-0495- I-NRR)
Lee and Tanya,
We have not seen the actual petition but the OEDO tasking seems at hand.
Mike
From: Singal, BalwantSent: .Friday, September 19, 2014 2:26 PMTo: Jaegers, CathyCc: Markley, MichaelSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR- 14-0495-1 -NRR)
Cathy,
Can we get access to the actual petition please?
From: Markley, MichaelSent: Friday, 'September'l 9, 2014 12:47 PMTo: Singal, BalwantSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-l-NRR)
Sorry, Balwant, I am not seeing an actual petition in any of these files. Just a lot of duplicate letters, a SusquehannaSecurity-related document, and an Army document. The links do not allow asccesssx to an actual petition and it isnot in any of these ADAMS files.
From: Singal, BalwantSent: Friday, September 19, 2014 12:33 PMTo: Markley, MichaelSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495- I-NRR)
Yes. I was able to open it. It has reference to the following two NIL numbers and I was able to get to the documentsby clicking the link:
MI.. 14245A494
ML1 4245A495 (Package)
Contains ML14246A484, ML14246A496, and ML14246A494).
Couple of documents are large (30-40 pages).
I can help on Monday if needed.
From: Markley, MichaelSent: Friday, September 19, 2014 12:11 PMTo: Singal, Balwant; Oesterle. EricCc: RidsNrrMailCenter Resource; Jaegers, CathySubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-l-NRR)
Balwant,
Can you get to the petition? I tried to open the link but it appears to require downloading software that is not
supported on NRC systems.
Mike
From:. Singal, BalwantSent: Friday, September 19, 2014 10:20 AMTo: Oesterle, EricCc: Markley, MichaelSubject: FW: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR- 14-0495-l -NRR)
For your information please.
From: RidsNrrDorl ResourceSent: Friday, September 19, 2014 10:11 AMTo: Singal, BalwantSubject: FW: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
From: RidsNrrMailCenter ResourceSent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 1:05 PMTo: RidsNrrDorl ResourceCc: Cox, LindaSubject: FW: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
The following appropriate action on Request Decommissioning of the Aging Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
has been assigned to DORL.
Please let me know if you plan to respond.
SECY would like this document released to the public in ADAMS. Please review and let me know if that is ok.
From: ADAMS p8 icm serviceSent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 2:24 PM
To: ICMSTARS_.NRR; Dudek, MichaelSubject: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
A new OEDO Ticket has been assigned to you by Jaegers, Cathy (cej) on 09/03/2014.
[http://adamsicninrc.aov:908OiSTA R S/STA R Spngj]< tlns://adamsienm. nrc.govi/STA RS>
Last User Comment has been added to a Ticket by 09/03/2014 on 09/03/2014. The comment was -
09/03/2014
The Ticket information is below.
Ticket InfoActivity Information
Case Number
LTR- 14-0495- I -NRR
Status
New
Activity Type
LTR
EDO Due Date
SECY Due Date
Requested Due Date
Assigned Offices
NRR
Routing Copies to
Region IV I OGC
EDO Point of Contact
Dudek, Michael (mid)
Other Parties
Incoming ADAMS Accession
ML]I 4245A494<hftp~s://adamsxt.nrc.6uov/WorkplaceXT!get(onlent?obiectStoreNanie=M in%20Ol ibrary5&ohiiectType'document&-vsd=dZ%7bCF392E2 I- I.FRE-4027.-2A2Afl.429858568D3A?6U>
Date of Incoming
09/29/2014
Incoming ADAMS Package
ML1I4245A495<hittps://aLdamtnsxt.nrc,, ov/WorkplaceX'TAicet('ontent'?ob-iectStorcNamne.--\ain%20[ ibhrry&obijectT~pe~docurnentitvsld%,!-7b814FA5 BO-3 F37-45 A I-9102-4E3394A9DC1)I %7d>
Frequency
Incoming Information
Originator
Keating M
Originator Organization
Citizens
Task
Addressee Name
Macfarlane A M
Addressee Affiliation
NRC/Chairman
Incoming Received Date
09/02/2014
Subject
Request Decommissioning of the Aging Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
Description
Process Information
Special Instructions Type
Appropriate Action
Special Instructions
For Appropriate Action. Office/Region to determine if a response is needed. If response is appropriate, please besure to include your response to the ADAMS Package and process accordingly. Copies should be sent toRidsEdoMailCenter and RidsSecyMailCenter. The incoming document needs to be made publicly available inADAMS per SECY for immediate release. If this should not be made publicly available, please let us know ASAP.
Near Term Comment
Requested Action Type
Appropriate Action
Cross Reference Numbers
Signature Level
No Signature Required
OIG Recommend
OEDO Concurrence
OCM Concurrence
OCA Concurrence
From: Cln. Otio-Lwi~n
To: Maqky. mictaelSubjectu: FM STARS OEDO Office Notificatio41 (LTR-14-049S-t-NRR)DIate Thursday, September 5, 2014 1:57:53 P•1.
FYI
----- Original Message -----From: Walker(NRR), SandraSent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 1:57 PMTo: Chen, Qiao-LynnSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
Hi Lynn,
The ticket has been dosed in STARS. Since it was just an appropriate action I was able to access STARS and state that staffwill not be responding.
Thanks,Sandra
-.. Original Message----From: Chen, Qiao-LynnSent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 7:58 AMTo: Walker(NRR), SandraSubject: FW: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)Importance: High
Good Morning Sandra,
Would you be able to help me with this answer.
Thank you!
----- Original Message -----From: Burkhardt, JanetSent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 7:52 AMTo: Chen, Qiao-Lynn; Cox, LindaSubject: FW: STARS OEDO Office Notification {LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)Importance: High
Can either of you please respond to Mike? I have never heard of STARS and don't know how to advise him.
Jan
-----Original Message--...From: Markley, MichaelSent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 7:46 AMTo: Burkhardt, JanetCc Orf, TracySubject: FW: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
Jan,
Do I close a STARS ticket in the same manner as we request extensions for due dates.'
Mike
----- Original Message -----From: Stuchell, SheldonSent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 5:S9 PMTo: Dudek, Michael; Markley, MichaelCc: Mohseni, Aby; Banic, Merrilee; Mensah, Tanya; Khanna, Meena; Singal, Balwant; Oesterle, Eric; Pedersen, ReneeSubject: FW:. STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
Mike & Mike,
I'd like to make sure this issue is closed, and any ticket assigned to NRR Is dosed. Any correspondence coming to the NRC canbe considered as a 2.206 petition, if It meets the requirements of our MD and is determined to be an actual petition. In thiscase, the submittal does not meet the requirements to be a 2.206 petition, and should be considered general correspondence.
The e-mail chain below can be confusing, and I must point out that no single individual submitted this correspondence. It wasnot Mr. Peck. Mr. Peck, one of our Sr. Resident Inspector's, did in fact have a DPO about Diablo, but that OPO has beendispositioned. The submitter in this case was "change.org."
Therefore, there Is no Individual we can respond to.
I highly recommend this be closed with no further action. As noted in the ticket, staff Is to respond "as appropriate." In thiscase, the appropriate response is no response to an organization.
If there are still questions as to how to dose the issue, it should be worked out between Mike and Mike. This is not a 2.206petition and NRR/DPR is not involved.
Hope this helps,Sheldon
----- Original Message -----
From: Banic, MerileeSent: Wednesday, September 24, 20.14 1:36 PMTo: Stuchell, SheldonCc: Mensah, TanyaSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office. Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
A little background:If change.org is basing Its petition on M. Peck's, a Sr Resident's, DPO, the NRC resolved his DPO:htt-/rIl .nrclxovlheadlines/DiabloSafe.9-1B-2014.pdf
From: Stuchell, SheldonSent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:34 PMTo: Dudek, Michael; Mensah, Tanya; Banic, Merrilee; Markley, Michael; Kokaiko, Lawrence; Khanna, MeenaCc: Singal, Balwant; Oesterle, Eric; Pedersen, ReneeSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-049S-1-NRR)
All,
The easiest solution to this, is for the DORL PM to respond by e-mail to the submitter (he is not a petitioner) and let him knowthat we have received his general correspondence and thank him for his interest in nuclear safety. There is no need toexpound or explain any further than that.
We receive numerous submittals all year long, that require nothing more than an acknowledgement.
Sheldon
From: Dudek, MichaelSent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:25 PMTo: Mensah, Tanya; Banic, Merrilee; Markley, Michael; Kokajko, Lawrence; Khanna, MeenaCc: Singal, Balwant; Oesterle, Eric; Pedersen, Renee; Stuchell, SheldonSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
All: As a result of the past e-mails, it now appears that we (the staff) have an action to contact the petitioner (Mr. Peck) tohave him formally submit the petition in hard-copy to the NRC so that we have an official record of his concerns.
Question: Does the staff want to take this action, or should I try to go back through the Chairman's Office for this requestsince that Is where is action originated?
Please advise.
Michael L DudekMichael I. Dudek I OEDO Executive Technical Assistant I U.S. NRC I b)F1*: [email protected]< Ilto:Michael.Dudekifnrc.gov> I *: (301) 415-6500 B8:1I
From: Mensah, TanyaSent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 11:24 AMTo: Banic, Merrilee; Markley, Michael; Kokajko, Lawrence; Khanna, MeenaCc: Singal, Balwant; Oesterle, Eric; Pedersen, Renee; Dudek, Michael; Stuchell, SheldonSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1 -NRR)
To expand on Lee's comment, in the past we've had several petitioners attempt to direct us to their personal websites or bloqsto "download" 2.206 petitions and other supplemental materials. I(b)()
t()A() J In these cases, the PM simply informed the petitioner
of the process to submit a 2.206 petition, in writing, if they want their concerns considered under that process.
Members of the public often change their website links/blogs. Their URLs may not even exist in a year. So we need an officialNRC record of the petitioner's concerns, which they have to submit in writing to the NRC. If the petitioner has videos or otherelectronic media to support their 2.206 petition, we advise them of the proper way to submit it. I think the DCD has guidance
.on the proper submission of electronic media to ensure that it is docketed.
Tanya
From: Banic, MerdleeSent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:32 AMTo: Markley, Michael; Kokajko, Lawrence; Khanna, MeenaCc: Singal, Baiwant; Oesterle, Eric; Mensah, Tanya; Pedersen, Renee; Dudek, Michael; Stuchell, SheldonSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1 -NRR)
Per our MD 8.11 "Section 2.206 requires that the petition be submitted in writing and provide the grounds for taking theproposed action...."
From: Markley, MichaelSent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:11 AMTo: Kokajko, Lawrence; Khanna, MeenaCc: Singal, Baiwant; Oesterle, Eric; Mensah, Tanya; Banic, Merrilee; Pedersen, Renee; Dudek, MichaelSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
Lawrence and Tim,
The assertion that this follows the process in 2.206 for submitting petitions to the EDO seems highly out of process. We shouldnot have to download software to review a submittal to the NRC. Likewise, we should not have to go through extrememeasures to access the information via an external website. I am struggling to see how the link provides an actual petition. Itmerely asserts that Michael Peck's DPO should provide the basis for a petition to shut down the plant. This is highly out ofprocess.
From my view, we have nothing to process here. The petitioner should be referred to the regulations in 2.206 and follow theprocess. NRR/DPR may disagree, but I do not see a document that we have submitted in an official manner that warrants theassignment of a petition manager. Let's talk. I do not see a basis for entering this into the petition process.
Mike Markley
From: Dudek, MichaelSent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 2:43 PMTo: Markley, MichaelCc: Singal, Balwant; Oesterle, EricSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
I went onto my iPhone and found it on the web site.
[dd:[email protected]]Petitioning Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Decommission the aging Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant 1,[dd:image002,[email protected]]<https:/Iwwwm.chanae.oro/oraan'izations/Lincomnmon folk>
2.
1. Petition by
Uncommon Folk< https: //www.change.ora/oroanizations/uncommon folk>
In fault-ridden San Louis Obispo County, stands California's last two operating nuclear reactors in the aging Diablo CanyonPower Plant (circa 1973). They are located proximally to the Los Osos, Hosgri, San Andreas, and Shoreline Faults, along shoresnear Avila Beach.
According to a recent report by Michael Blood (ABC 30 Action News); a senior federal nuclear expert, Michael Peck, has urgedregulators to shut down the aging power plant until they can determine whether or not the facility's twin reactors can withstandan earthquake of similar or larger size than the one that recently shook Napa. Blood reports:
Peck, who for five years was Diablo Canyon's lead on-site inspector, says in a 42-page, confidential report that the NuclearRegulatory Commission is not applying the safety rules it set out for the plant's operation.
In light of the unfolding disaster at the Fukushima Daichii power plant, we the undersigned are asking that Governor JerryBrown support us in demanding that the Diablo Canyon Plant be shut down until it can be properly earthquake tested andMichael Peck's charges of negligence be thoroughly Investigated,
Or better yet, we ask that Jerry Brown work to shut down the Diablo Canyon Plant permanently, as it is located in such an
unsafe region.
We the undersigned ask that NRC Inspector General Hubert T. Bell, Chalman Allison Macfarlane, and Govenor Jerry Brownlisten to the experts and heed the warnings of recent history, so we are not collectively doomed to repeat such catastrophicfailures.
For the sake of California and its citizens, young and old. please shut down the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant!
Here Is a short and enlightening PBS video that was made before several more major faultlines were found in thatarea...making it even MORE Imperative that these professional opinions be heeded. Please take a few minutes to watch. Thereis a long history of lies and suppression of information surrounding the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, at the peril of our citizensand their families->
http:/Ivideo.=bs.ora/video/205E655205!_
MORE PETITIONS TO SIGN. THIS MOVEMENT IS GAINING MOMENTUM, THANKS TO ALL OF YOU. Please sign them all and
PASS IT ON! Together we can do it->
(1) httn:/Iaction~foe.om/Dnldialaction3tcnmmon/toublic/paction KEY= 16333
(2) httn://noetitions.moveon.orglsign/nrc-shut-down-diablo?source=s.icn.tw&r bv=7595393
(3) http:/Lact.credoaction~com/-sign`/diablo canyon
IMPORTANT TO THOSE LIVING IN NEAR DIABLO CANYON. RECENT STUDY INDICATES SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER CANCERRATES IN RESIDENTS->
httl/Ca s com/20143/hgh -cancer-rates-near-diablo-canyon- n uclear-o)lan/
http:/Zww`w.helen~aldicottfoundatbon.or•/blogs/health-studies-exDlode-the-myth-of,-the `safe'-nuclear-power-plant~html<htti2.,/wvw'•elencaldicottfoundation.org-bboas/health-tuie-eode-the-IMvh-of-the-'safe-nudear-p2wer-
htto: lIworldbujcness.oro/nudear--ower-health-impact -studv/
More information->
httnt:/twortdbusinezssora/safe-eneroy- nro=ctdose-diablo-canyo-nuclear-nower.-nlant/
htto //worldbusiness.Qorc/nuclear-regulators-hear-fr.m-angcrv-1ubic-on-diablo-canyn-oiant/
httpl:/Iwwwl.sfate.com/newslartide/"Earthauake-concerns-1romot-call-to-shut-nudear-57 1171 7-phu
http://v'v.cbsnewsvcombewsllifomia-earthquake-expert-•ge-g9- nudear-plant--dlosure-over-threat/
h`tWt:•A•`•`°•daynews'comieneral-ne•ys201,0825/-diabloany~on-nuclear-pla-nt-should-be-dlose-forauak~e-testino-expert-
To:Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Hubert T. Bell, Inspector General at the NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission, AllisonMacfarlane, Chariman of the NRC Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Gov. Jerry Brown, California Decommission Aging DiabloCanyon Nuclear Power Plant
Sincerely,(Your name]
Michael 1. Dudek I OEDO Executive Technical Assistant I U.S. NRC (b)(6)e: [email protected]<mailto:Michael.Dudek(rinrc.aov> I e: (301) 415-6500 I BB
From: Markley, MichaelSent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 2:24 PMTo: Dudek, MichaelCc: Singal, Balwant; Oesterle, EricSubject: FW: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
Mike,
Can we go back to the Chairman's office to get a hard copy of the petition.? We are having no luck in accessing the documentvia the links.
Mike
From: Singal, BalwantSent: Tuesday, September 23,-2014 12:42 PMTo: Mensah, TanyaCc: Oesterle, Eric; Markley, MichaelSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14+,0495-1-NRR)
Cathy was unable to help (could not open the file from the link in the file). She suggested contacting CSC. CSC was on mydesk yesterday, but were also unable to open the file. They believe there is a problem with the link. Hence, as of now we donot have a resolution and do not have a copy ofrthe petition.
From: Mensah, TanyaSent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:57 AMTo: Markley, Michael; Banic, MerrileeCc: Singal, BalwantSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-049s-1-NRR)
Any resolution on this? I typically email Cathy Jaegars for the incoming when we have problems accessing it via ADAMS. Lookslike Balwant already submitted an email to her.
.ust following up.
Tanya
From: Markley, MichaelSent: Monday, September 22, 2014 3:41 PMTo: Banic, Mernlee; Mensah, TanyaCc: Singal, BalwantSubject: FW: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
Lee and Tanya,
We have not seen the actual petition but the OEDO tasking seems at hand.
Mike
From: Singal, BalwantSent: Friday, September 19, 2014 2:26 PMTo: Jaegers, CathyCc: Markley, MichaelSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
Cathy,
Can we get access to the actual petition please?
From: Markley, MichaelSent: Friday, September 19, 2014 12:47 PMTo: Singal, BalwantSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
Sorry, Balwant, I am not seeing an actual petition in any of these files. Just a lot of duplicate letters, a Susquehanna Security-related document, and an Army document. The links do not allow asccesssx to an actual petition and it is not in any of theseADAMS files.
From: Singal, BalwantSent: Friday, September 19, 2014 12:33 PMTo: Markley, MichaelSubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-049S-1-NRR)
Yes. I was able to open it. It has reference to the following two ML numbers and I was able to get to the documents byclicking the link:
ML1424SA494
ML1424SA495 (Package)
Contains ML14246A484, ML14246A496, and ML14246A494).
Couple of documents are large (30-40 pages).
I can help on Monday if needed.
From: Markley, MichaelSent: Friday, September 19, 2014 12:11 PMTo: Singal, Balwant; Oesterle, EricCc: RidsNrrMailCenter Resource; Jaegers, CathySubject: RE: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
Balwant,
Can you get to the petition? I tried to open the link but it appears to require downloading software that is not supported onNRC systems.
Mike
From: Singal, BalwantSent: Friday, September 19, 2014 10:20 AMTo: Oesterle, EricCc: Markley, MichaelSubject: FW: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
For your information please,
From: RldsNrrDod ResourceSent: Friday, September 19, 2014 10:11 AMTo: Singal, BalwantSubject: FW: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
From: RidsNrrMailCenter ResourceSent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 1:05 PMTo: RidsNrrDorl ResourceCc: Cox, UndaSubject: FW: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
The following appropriate action on Request Decommissioning of the Aging Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant has beenassigned to DORL.
Please let me know if you plan to respond.
SECY would like this document released to the public in ADAMS. Please review and let me know If that is ok.
From: ADAMS p8jcm_5erviceSent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 2:24 PMTo: ICM_STARSNRR; Dudek, MichaelSubject: STARS OEDO Office Notification (LTR-14-0495-1-NRR)
A new OEDO Ticket has been assigned to you by Jaegers, Cathy (cej) on 09/03/2014.
[tta:/Ladams¢m.nrc.gov:9OlSTARS/STARS.on ]<htts://adamsicm.nrc.goy/STR>
Last User Comment has been added to a Ticket by 09/03/2014 on 09/03/2014. The comment was -
09/03/2014
The Ticket information is below.
Ticket InfoActivity Information
Case Number
LTR-14-0495-1-NRR
Status
New
ActMty Type
LTR
EDO Due Date
SECY Due Date
Requested Due Date
Assigned Offices
NRR
Routing Copies to
Region IV I OGC
EDO Point of Contact
Dudek, Michael (mid)
Other Parties
Incoming ADAMS Accession
ML14245A494 < https:lttadamsxt, nrc,9oviýLorkplaceX~letContent?
•biectStoreNae =Main% 2OLibrarv&objedTy•e document&vsld=O %7bC392F21 -iff-4027 2B-!42 56D >
Date of Incoming
09/29/2014
Incoming ADAMS Package
ML14245A495< ,'. t to eZob mbrtStoreName Main /%20brar&obiectTwe=document&vsJd%/7b814EA5B•-3F3*74-4SA1l9102-4E3394A9DCD1% 7d>
Frequency
Incoming Information
Originator
Keating M
Originator Organization
Otizens
Task
Addressee Name
Macfarlane A M
Addressee Affilation
NRc/Chafrman
Incoming Received Date
09/02/2014
Subject
Request Decommissioning of the Aging Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
Description
Process Information
Special Instructions Type
Appropriate Action
Special Instructions
For Appropriate Action. Office/Region to determine if a response Is needed, If response Is appropriate, please be sure to includeyour response to the ADAMS Package and process accordingly. Copies should be sent to RidsEdoMailCenter andRldsSecyMailCenter. The fncoming document needs to be made publicly avaiable in ADAMS per SECY for immediate release. Ifthis should not be made publicly available, please let us know ASAP.
Near Term Comment
Requested Action Type
Appropriate Action
Cross Reference Numbers
Signature Level
No Signature Required
OIG Recommend
OEDO Concurrence
OCM Concurrence
OCA Concurrence
Wertz, Trent
From: Leeds, EricSent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 12:43 AMTo: Dapas, MarcCc: Johnson, Michael; Uhle, Jennifer, Wertz, TrentSubject: Re: Follow up from our meeting with the Mothers for Peace last Tuesday afternoon
Thanks Marc. I think you've done all you can. I'm sure my decision will elicit feedback. I've chosen to focus on the safetyaspect of the issue and will be rather short and direct in stark contrast to the DPO submittal, as well as the work done bythe DPO panel, At the least, it should be understandable to all.
Eric
From: Dapas, MarcSent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 09:10 PMTo: Leeds, EricCc: Johnson, Michael; Krsek, RobertSubject: FW: Follow up from our meeting with the Mothers for Peace last Tuesday afternoon
In follow up to our discussion last week Eric, I am forwarding this to you so that you are aware of mycommunication with Jane Swanson of the Mothers for Peace on the subject matter. Thanks.
From: Dapas, MarcSe t1- WLnd AvdM. may 28-&.N14 8:08 PMTo:I (b)6]
Su -ect: Follow up from our meeting with the Mothers for Peace last Tuesday afternoon
Jane, I much appreciate the opportunity we had to meet with you and the other members of your Mothers'Board last week. I thought the discussion was mutually beneficial in terms of providing me with a perspectiveon the various issues/concerns you and your fellow board members have with respect to operation of theDiablo Canyon plant and affording us the chance to answer your questions.
Since the Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) filed by Mr. Peck was the subject of some of our discussion, Iwanted to follow up with you on the current status of the DPO process. Eric Leeds, who is the Director of ourOffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, will be signing out the DPO decision tomorrow. The DPO panel, which iscomprised of three independent staff members who have not previously worked on the seismic issues atDiablo Canyon (and one of which had been recommended by the DPO submitter), forwarded to Mr. Leeds theresults of the panel's review of the DPO. Mr. Leeds has reviewed the panel's recommendation and supportingbasis and is ready to make his decision on the DPO. Once Mr. Leeds issues his DPO decision, we will notifythe DPO submitter (in this case, Mr. Peck) of his right to appeal the decision to our Executive Director forOperations (Mark Satorius) and will remind him of our policy not to release pre-decisional information. TheDPO decision is considered pre-decisional if the DPO submitter decides to appeal the decision to the EDOsince in that circumstance, the EDO has to review the case and make a final agency determination regardingthe appeal. If Mr. Peck decides not to appeal the DPO decision, the OPO process is complete, and therefore,if Mr. Peck asked us to make his DPO public, we would honor his request. Should Mr. Peck appeal the DPOdecision, once the EDO has rendered a decision on the appeal, the DPO process would be complete and wewould make the DPO public upon Mr. Peck's request for us to do so.
I hope you find this responsive to my commitment to keep you informed of where we are in the process withrespect to Mr. Peck's DPO submittal. Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions.
c14+
Burnell, Scott
From: Burnell, ScottSent. Wednesday, September 03, 2014 9:14 AMTo: McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, HollySubject: Re: Chairman brief on Diablo
I can call in, of course, but if we prefer in-person then it's obviously Dave.
Sent from an NRC BlackberryScott Burnell
Original Message -
From: McIntyre, DavidSent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 09:01 AMTo: Burnell, Scott; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, HollySubject: RE: Chairman brief on Diablo
Per the morning meeting, this meeting has now been moved to THURSDAY at 11 am.
--- Original Message-From: Burnell, Scott,Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 6:16 AMTo: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; McIntyre, DavidSubject: RE: Chairman brief on Diablo
I've dealt with the Diablo seismic issues for years. Both Dave and I are working on the foreign ownershippaper, for whatever that's worth.
From: Brenner, EliotSent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 12:16 AMTo: Harrington, Holly; McIntyre, David; Bumell, ScottSubject: Re: Chairman brief on Diablo
I think dave because this is a long runing operating issue.
-Original MessageFrom: Harrington, HollySent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 10:01 PMTo: Brenner, Eliot; McIntyre, David; Bumell, ScottSubject: FW: Chairman brief on Diablo
Ok, the one we're invited to is this Friday from 3 to 3:45. Who is best to represent OPA?
Holly Harrington
Senior Level AdvisorOffice of Public AffairsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
301.415.82038
---- Original Message---From: Burnell, ScottSent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:20 PMTo: Harrington, Holly; McIntyre, David; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, EliotSubject: RE: Chairman brief on Diablo
Understood.
From: Harrington, HollySent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:17 PMTo: Bumell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, EliotSubject: RE: Chairman brief on Diablo
Thursday's meeting is the one we're not invited to. The one we are is yet unscheduled
Holly Harrington
Senior Level AdvisorOffice of Public AffairsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
301.415.8203
--- Original Message--From: Burnell, ScottSent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:09 PMTo: McIntyre, David; Harrington, Holly; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, EliotSubject: RE: Chairman brief on Diablo
I can certainly call in to the separate meeting if it's Thursday -- both Dave and I have kept an eye on the foreignownership issue.
From: McIntyre, DavidSent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:03 PMTo: Harrington, Holly; Use lding, Lara; Brenner, EliotCc: Burnell, ScottSubject: RE: Chairman brief on Diablo
Sounds like a fun day.
----Original Message---From: Harrington, HollySent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 2:54 PMTo: Uselding, Lara; Brenner, EliotCc: McIntyre, David; Burnell, ScottSubject: RE: Chairman brief on Diablo
From Jen: It's my understanding that Thursday's meeting is going to deal with the technical issues associatedwith the Shoreline fault and an update of what's going on with the DPO, and that Phil has requested a separatemeeting (as yet unscheduled) to address messaging on Diablo and the foreign ownership issue - to which he'sasked that OPA, OCA, and assorted others be invited.
Holly Harrington9
Senior Level AdvisorOffice of Public AffairsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
301.415.8203
-- Original Message--From: Uselding, LaraSent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 2:07 PMTo: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, HollySubject: Chairman brief on Diablo
Hello: I left a voicemail for Scott as I heard from a RIV staffer that the Chairman wants a brief on all thingsDiablo this Thursday. Do you know about this and if so, will someone from HQ OPA sit in on that?Lara
-.--- Original Message---From: Burnell, ScottSent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 1:03 PMTo: Uselding, LaraSubject: I'm out today and tomorrow
Sorry, should have updated my voicemail. Haven't heard anything about a chairman brief. Check wJHolly?
Sent from an NRC Blackberry
Scott Burnellw oo
10
Bumell, Scott
From: Burnell, ScottSent- Wednesday, September 10, 2014 8:34 AMTo: Brenner, Eliot; McIntyre, David; Harrington, Holly; Uselding, Lara; Dricks, VictorCc: Oesterle, EricSubject: DPO comm plan
I'm told by reliable sources that NRR is updating the plan to account for the EDO decision and we'll see it thismorning.
Sent from an NRC BlackberryScott Bumell
C/v
Burnell. Scott
From: Burnell, ScottSent Wednesday, September 10, 2014 9:45 AMTo: McIntyre, David; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, HollySubject: Re: Diablo DPO IS public in ADAMS
Yes, I agree.
Sent from an NRC BlackberryScott Burnell
From: McIntyre, DavidSent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 09:42 AMTo: Burnell, Scott; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, HollySubject: RE: Diablo DPO IS public in ADAMS
But it IS public as of yesterday, They just won't be able to find it via our nrc.gov website until later today.
From: Burnell, ScottSent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 9:42 AMTo: McIntyre, David; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, HollySubject: Re: Diablo DPO IS public in ADAMS
I would imagine someone's given ADAMS staff a nudge to immediately replicate it to the public site.
Sent from an NRC BlackberryScott Burnell
From: McIntyre, DavidSent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 09:39 AMTo: Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, ScottSubject: Diablo DPO IS public in ADAMS
Lara, et al - The DPO is public in Adams at ML14252A743. It was dated yesterday (9/9) and date to bereleased is yesterday (9/9). It does not yet come up in web-based Adams, which has a 1-day delay;however, anyone who has direct adams access can already find it. (eg., Platts, I imagine)
C34-
Burnell, Scott
From:Sent:To:Subject:Attachments:
Burnell, ScottWednesday, September 10, 2014 11:39 AMUselding, Lara; Sebrosky, JosephRE: Scott/Joe; review of blog prior to sending to EliotSEP2014blogAB1632_srb.docx
Here are my edits.
From: Uselding, LaraSent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:03 AMTo: Burnell, Scott; Sebrosky, JosephSubject: Scott/Joe; review of blog prior to sending to EliotImportance: High
6 C149
Diablo Canyon In the News
(b~
Bumell, Scott
From: Burnell, ScottSent Wednesday, September 10, 2014 4:52 PMTo: Uselding, Lara; OPA Resource; Dricks, VictorSubject: Re: Diablo Canyon nuclear plant decision?
Thanks.
Sent from an NRC BlackberryScott Burnell
w(b)(6)
From: Uselding, LardSent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 04:51 PMTo: Burnell, Scott; OPA Resource; Dricks, VictorSubject: RE: Diablo Canyon nuclear plant decision?
Yes. I took care of this
From: Burnell, ScottSent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 3:17 PMToo CPA Resource; Uselding, Lara; Dricks, VictorSubject: RE: Diablo Canyon nuclear plant decision?
Lara's handling these requests.
From: OPA ResourceSent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 4:16 PMTo: Burnell, ScottSubject: FW: Diablo Canyon nuclear plant decision?
Scott,
Can you please help with the below email.
Thanks,
Office of Public AffairsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission(301) 415-8200opa. resource(,nrc.qov
From: Raab, Lauren fmailto:Lauren.Raab(alatimes.com]Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 4:03 PMTo: OPA ResourceSubject; Diablo Canyon nuclear plant decision?
13
Can you confirm reports that an NRC official has rejected a call to shut down Diablo Canyon, California's last remainingnuclear power plant, until it can be determined whether the facility can stand up to an earthquake off the Central Coast?
I'd appreciate any details and/or documents you can provide.
In case it helps you route the question to the right person, the Associated Press is saying this:
A top Nuclear Regulatory Commission official has rejected a federal expert's recommendation to shut downCalifornia's last operating nuclear power plant until it can determine whether its reactors can withstandpowerful shaking from nearby earthquake faults.
In a decision released Wednesday, operations executive Mark Satorius said there is no immediate or significant
safety concern at the Diablo Canyon plant.
Thank you very much.
Lauren RaabLos Angeles Times
TCellr i rabu 1Twitter: P raablauren
14
